Software engineers Michael Devine, Mark Fichtner, SiddarthHariharan, Brandon Marshall, and Daniel Stover, individually andon behalf of a class of all those similarly situated, allegeantitrust claims against their former employers, Adobe SystemsInc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc., LucasfilmLtd., and Pixar, all of whom are high-tech companies with aprincipal place of business in the San Francisco-Silicon Valleyarea of California. The Plaintiffs challenge an allegedoverarching conspiracy among the Defendants to fix and suppressemployee compensation and to restrict employee mobility.

From 2009 through 2010, the Antitrust Division of the Departmentof Justice conducted an investigation into the Defendants'employment and recruitment practices, and concluded that theDefendants reached "facially anticompetitive" agreements that"eliminated a significant form of competition to the detriment ofthe affected employees who were likely deprived of competitivelyimportant information and access to better job opportunities."Following its investigation, the DOJ filed complaints in federalcourt against the Defendants, and filed stipulated proposed finaljudgments in each case. In these stipulated proposed finaljudgments, the Defendants did not admit any wrongdoing orviolation of law, but they agreed to be "enjoined from attemptingto enter into, maintaining or enforcing any agreement with anyother person or in any way refrain[ing] [from] . . . soliciting,cold calling, recruiting, or otherwise competing for employees ofthe other person."

The Plaintiffs contend that, although the DOJ ultimately put anend to these illegal agreements, the government was unable tocompensate the victims of the conspiracy. The Plaintiffs nowbring the present case as private attorneys general "to pick upwhere the DOJ left off, to seek damages for themselves and for theClass."

On October 1, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for ClassCertification. The Defendants opposed and filed a motion tostrike the expert report submitted by the Plaintiffs. On January9, 2013, the Defendants filed a Joint Administrative Motion forLeave to Supplement the Record in Support of Defendants'Opposition to Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs sought certification of a nationwide class ofsimilarly situated individuals (the All-Employee Class) andsalaried technical, creative, and research and developmentemployees (the Technical Class). In addition to deciding whetherPlaintiffs' proposed Classes should be certified pursuant to Rule23, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification asked the Courtdetermine whether named Plaintiffs should be appointed as Classrepresentatives and whether the Court should appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel as Co-Lead Class Counsel and interim members of theExecutive Committee as Class Counsel.

According to Judge Koh, the Plaintiffs have not satisfied thepredominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) for the purpose of theAll Employee Class or the Technical Class. Nevertheless, theCourt is keenly aware that the Defendants did not producesignificant amounts of discovery or make key witnesses availablefor depositions until after the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion forClass Certification. Therefore, while the Court denies thePlaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, the Court affordsPlaintiffs leave to amend.

The Court confirmed as final the appointment of Lieff, Cabraser,Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and the Joseph Saveri Law Firm asCo-Lead Counsel.

The Court granted the Plaintiffs' request to appoint as ClassCounsel the law firms that have served on the Executive Committee,Berger & Montague, P.A. and Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.

However, the Court declined to appoint Plaintiffs as Classrepresentatives at this time.

The Court said it did not find that the Plaintiffs have set forthgood cause to strike either the Declaration of Michelle Maupin,the Senior Manager of Compensation at Lucasfilm, or theDeclaration of Danny McKelly, the Compensation and BenefitsSpecialist at Intel Corporation. The Plaintiffs' request to strikethese declarations was denied.

The Court also denied the Defendants' Joint Administrative Motionfor Leave to Supplement the Record in Support of Defendants'Opposition to Class Certification.

A copy of the District Court's April 5, 2013 Order is available athttp://is.gd/9eF9D2from Leagle.com.

AFFINION GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Conn.--------------------------------------------------------------Affinion Group, Inc., continues to defend consolidated classaction lawsuit in Connecticut, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On June 17, 2010, a class action complaintwas filed against the Company and Trilegiant Corporation("Trilegiant") in the United States District Court for theDistrict of Connecticut. The complaint asserts various causes ofaction on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of itsmembership programs, including claims under the ElectronicCommunications Privacy Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade PracticesAct, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, theCalifornia Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California UnfairCompetition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and forunjust enrichment. On September 29, 2010, the Company filed amotion to compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in thislawsuit. On February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company'smotion. On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed anotice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for theSecond Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of theirmotion to compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the SecondCircuit affirmed the decision of the District Court denyingarbitration. While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceededin the district court. There was written discovery anddepositions. Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule onclass certification that called for the completion of classcertification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28,2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion dueto the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the UnitedStates District Court for the District of Connecticut. The firstof those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the Company,Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., CapitalOne Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., ApolloGlobal Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United Online,Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD Group, Inc.,Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp., PeopleFinderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA,Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc. The second ofthose cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the samedefendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assertsimilar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuitin connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membershipprograms.

"On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. Thecourt also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. Atthat status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file aconsolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the threepreviously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the classcertification briefing schedule that had been set previously. OnSeptember 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amendedcomplaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. Theconsolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, ChasePaymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added threenew Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten asDefendants. On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motionsseeking to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and tostrike certain portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's responsebrief was filed on February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefsare due March 11, 2013.

"Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in theseconsolidated cases filed an additional action in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Connecticut. That case isidentical in all respects to this case except that it was filed bya new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the case described inthe following paragraph). On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed amotion to consolidate that case into the existing set ofconsolidated cases. We do not know when the court will rule onthat motion. On February 15, 2013, the Court entered an orderstaying the date for all Defendants to respond to the Complaintuntil the sooner of (1) the resolution of the motion toconsolidate the case into the existing consolidated cases, or (2)April 1, 2013.

"On November 10, 2010, a class action complaint was filed againstthe Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA,N.A. in the United States District Court for the Eastern Districtof New York. The complaint asserts various causes of action onbehalf of several putative nationwide classes that largely overlapwith one another. The claims asserted are in connection with thesale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claimsunder the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ConnecticutUnfair Trade Practices Act, and New York's General Business Law.On April 6, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant fileda motion to compel individual (non-class) arbitration of theplaintiff's claims. The Company's co-defendant, 1-800-Flowers.com,joined in the motion to compel arbitration, and co-defendant ChaseBank filed a motion to stay the case against it pendingarbitration, or alternatively to dismiss. On November 28, 2012,the Court allowed the Plaintiff to dismiss the case voluntarily."

The Company states: "On June 25, 2010, a class action lawsuit wasfiled against Webloyalty and one of its clients in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of Californiaalleging, among other things, violations of the Electronic FundTransfer Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjustenrichment, fraud, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation,fraud, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act violations, falseadvertising and California Consumer Business Practice violations.This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring onand after October 1, 2008. On February 17, 2011, Webloyalty fileda motion to dismiss the amended complaint in this lawsuit. OnApril 12, 2011, the Court granted Webloyalty's motion anddismissed all claims against the defendants. On May 10, 2011,plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal to the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff filed itsopening appeals brief with the Ninth Circuit on October 17, 2011,and defendants filed their respective answering briefs on Dec. 23,2011. Plaintiff filed its reply brief on January 23, 2012. OnJanuary 11, 2013, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on theplaintiff's appeal and, thereafter, took the matter underadvisement.

"On August 27, 2010, another substantially similar class actionlawsuit was filed against Webloyalty, one of its former clientsand one of the credit card associations in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Connecticut alleging, amongother things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act,Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, civiltheft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and Connecticut UnfairTrade Practices Act violations. This lawsuit relates toWebloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1,2008. On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismissthis lawsuit, which had since been amended in its entirety. Thecourt has not yet scheduled a hearing or ruled on Webloyalty'smotion.

"On June 7, 2012, another class action lawsuit was filed in theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Californiaagainst Webloyalty that was factually similar to the foregoingCalifornia and Connecticut actions. The action claims thatWebloyalty engaged in unlawful business practices in violation ofCalifornia Business and Professional Code Section 17200, et seq.and in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.Both claims are based on allegations that in connection withenrollment and billing of the plaintiff, Webloyalty chargedplaintiff's credit or debit card using information obtainedthrough a data pass process and without obtaining directly fromplaintiff his full account number, name, address, and contactinformation, as purportedly required under Restore OnlineShoppers' Confidence Act. On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty fileda motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, scheduling ahearing on the motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also soughtjudicial notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment andaccount documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12,2012, and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7,2013. Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the Court cancelled thepreviously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated thatit would rule based on the parties' written submissions withoutthe need for a hearing, although it has not yet done so."

APPLE REITS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in REITs Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------Bill Singer, writing for Forbes, reports that in a dramaticEastern District of New York Opinion by Judge Matsumoto, the AppleREITs class action Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was granted.David Lerner Associates and the Apple REITs emerge victorious inthis contentious and high-profile class action.

In Re Apple REITs Litigation (EDNY, 11-CV-2919, April 4, 2013).

The Court noted on page 44 of its Opinion:

Here, however, Plaintiffs have failed to proffer an actionabletheory of loss.

"In sum, Plaintiffs' belabored Complaint appears only to confirmthat the Apple REITs are currently functioning in exactly themanner that was anticipated and disclosed in the REITs'prospectuses and other offering documents. . ."

In similarly stark and dismissive language, the Court states onpage 47 of its Opinion:

As the court previously discussed, Plaintiffs have failed tosufficiently plead any damages as a result of Defendants'purported misrepresentations or omissions with respect to theApple REITs. To the contrary, the Complaint alleges thatPlaintiffs have in fact consistently earned money from the AppleREITs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claim for common law breach offiduciary duty must be and is dismissed.

A judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofManhattan approved the settlement on April 5. The bank proposedthe settlement in late September. The agreement resolvesallegations that Bank of America did not disclose the state of itsfinances or those of Merrill Lynch when it agreed to buy Merrillin September 2008.

Judge Kevin Castel said the settlement was "hard fought," butcalled the final deal was "fair, reasonable and adequate."

"We are pleased that this matter has been resolved," said Bank ofAmerica spokesman Lawrence Grayson. A call seeking comment fromthe State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, one of theplaintiffs in the case, was not immediately returned.

Bank of America said in September that it rejected the allegationsand was agreeing to the settlement to end the uncertainties,burden and costs associated with the lawsuit.

The Charlotte, N.C., company agreed to buy Merrill Lynch for$20 billion in stock at the height of the financial crisis. Thedeal was struck the same weekend that Lehman Brothers collapsed.Bank of America later disclosed that Merrill Lynch was going totake $27.6 billion in losses that year. Bank of America laterasked for a $20 billion bailout from the federal government tohelp counteract those losses. It had already received $25 billionin bailout funds.

The Securities and Exchange Commission won a $150 millionsettlement from Bank of America in 2009 to resolve charges thecompany misled shareholders about the acquisition. The SEC saidBank of America failed to tell shareholders it had authorizedMerrill to pay as much as $5.8 billion in bonuses to its employeesin 2008 before shareholders voted on the acquisition. The dealclosed in early 2009.

Bank of America still faces a civil fraud lawsuit that accuses thecompany and former CEO Kenneth Lewis of failing to disclose theMerrill losses and bonuses before the acquisition closed. Thelawsuit was filed by then- New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomoin February 2010, and it is being pursued by AG Eric Schneiderman.The company says those charges are unfounded.

BANKERS LIFE: Faces Class Action Over Long-Term Care Insurance--------------------------------------------------------------Brent Hunsberger, writing for The Oregonian, reports that fourOregonians filed a federal class-action lawsuit on April 4,accusing Bankers Life and Casualty Co. of elder abuse in how itdenied and delayed long-term care insurance claims and raisedpremiums without improving benefits.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Portland, comes nearlythree months after a federal magistrate in Medford ruled thatChicago-based Bankers had breached its long-term care insurancecontract with a now-deceased Grants Pass woman.

It also follows years of complaints by state insurancecommissioners and consumers in Oregon about Bankers claimshandling practices.

"Bankers Life wrongfully withheld payments for people who'veapplied for assisted-living expenses," said Christopher Cauble,one of the attorneys bringing the case, during a press conferencein Portland on April 4. "They've wrongfully delayed payments.They've created legal hurdles and legal red tape."

A spokeswoman for Bankers parent CNO Financial Group Inc. said itdoes not comment on pending litigation.

The class action names Carmel, Ind.-based CNO and Conseco LifeInsurance Co., and also alleges breach of contract, breach ofpromises, fraud, negligence and intentional misconduct. It seeksa judge's approval to represent an estimated class of 9,000Oregonians and their relatives dissatisfied with their Bankerspolicy.

Long-term care insurance helps pay for nursing, assisted living,adult foster or home health care for elderly and people withdisabilities. Bankers have been the focus of multiple complaintsnationwide about its long-term care claims and other insuranceproducts.

Oregon Insurance Division records show that between 2005 and 2011,Bankers had the highest rate of consumer complaints among 19 to 20long-term care insurance providers in the state. Bankers also hadthe highest rates of complaints about its health insurance in2005, 2006 and 2008 and annuities from 2005-09.

In 2008, Conseco Inc. agreed to pay $6.3 million in penalties andrestitution to settle complaints brought by 40 state insuranceregulators about the behavior of Bankers and subsidiary ConsecoSenior Health Insurance Co. It also agreed to make $26 million inclaims-management improvements.

Oregon was not part of the agreement, attorneys said.

Last year, Bankers paid $3.2 million to five states to settleallegations that it had failed to live up to terms of the 2008settlement. The multi-state review found Bankers inappropriatelydenied maximum benefit claims and failed to investigate and settleclaims in a timely matter, the Pennsylvania Insurance Divisionsaid. The problems related to Bankers' long-term care, annuitiesand life insurance policies.

"At best, there's a culture of indifference and incompetence atBankers Life," said Michael L. Williams, an attorney bringing theclass action. "But we suspect when we get to the bottom of thisthat they've always had an intentional plan to save millions ofdollars of claims payments by denying and delaying routineclaims."

Lorraine Bates and her husband Charles Ehrman Bates are leadplaintiffs in the Oregon class-action lawsuit along with andEileen Burk and her son David Youngbluth. Also named as adefendant was James D. Peterson, a sales agent in Oregon.

According to the complaint, Bankers said the adult foster homethat 87-year-old Lorraine Bates moved into in 2009 in Union Countydidn't meet its policy requirements. The Oregon InsuranceDivision in 2011 later said that Bankers would pay her claim,19 months after she first submitted it.

Mr. Youngbluth hired an attorney after becoming frustrated tryingto file a claim for his 90-year-old mother, who moved intoassisted living in 2008 after a fall. The lawsuit claims Bankersowes Ms. Burk three months of unpaid benefits.

The lawsuit claims Bankers also violated the state's elder abuselaw by selling policies without disclosing large future premiumhikes that have come with no similar increase in benefits, despiterising health care costs.

Ms. Burk's premiums nearly doubled to $209 a month in 2010,according to the suit. Ms. Bates' premiums, which started at $278a month in 1998, now cost $778 a month, the complaint says.

In the Medford case earlier this year, U.S. Magistrate Judge MarkClarke found Bankers failed to abide by its policy when it refusedto cover all the costs of Katherine Fallow's certified home healthcare provider. The provider had been certified in Washingtonstate, but Bankers said the provider needed to be a certifiednursing assistant or registered in Oregon.

Mrs. Fallow passed away shortly after the case was filed in 2011,but her son has pressed on with it.

"I think they have an obligation to society to make things easierfor older people," said Dennis E. Fallow, who said he worked as aloss prevention consultant for an insurer. "We're pursuing itbecause they owe us $40,000. They shouldn't get away with this."

According to Herald Online, law firm Williams Love O'Leary &Powers alleges Bankers Life and Casualty, a Chicago-based firm, isdenying benefits to those who paid for long term health careinsurance so they would have security in their old age.

"My mother trusted this company," Mr. Fallow explained at aPortland news conference this morning. "She paid their premiumsfor years, counting on having support if she became ill. Thattime came and all she got from Bankers Life was a cold shoulder,rejection and red tape. It was a total rip off."

Mr. Fallow's 79-year-old mother, Katherine Fallow, needed an in-home caregiver when she came home in 2009 following multiplehospitalizations. The family hired a caregiver certified as ahome health aide by the State of Washington and an Oregoncertified home health aide to care for Mrs. Fallow. Mr. Fallowbegan submitting the bills for that care to Bankers Life,anticipating payment under terms of his mother's policy. Whatfollowed were several months of wrangling over aides'qualifications, long delays in communications and denials ofpayments. Bankers Life eventually made payments in the amount of$11,388, far short of the $51,667 the family paid for Mrs.Fallow's care. Mrs. Fallow died on July 6, 2011.

In 2011, Mr. Cauble filed a lawsuit against Bankers Life on behalfof the Fallows. He soon learned the Grants Pass family wasn'talone.

"Bankers Life has likely refused long term health care benefits tomany, many Oregonians," Mr. Cauble told reporters. "I beganhearing about other families with experiences similar to that ofthe Fallows. What we have in Bankers Life is a company with ahistory of raising premiums, delaying payments and denyinglegitimate claims."

Mr. Cauble's findings prompted him to join with Portland attorneyMike Williams and his firm to file the federal class actionagainst Bankers Life on behalf of all Oregon consumers. Thatlawsuit was the one filed in Portland on April 4. Fourindividuals (two harmed families) have made claims asrepresentatives of the class. Messrs. Cauble and Williamsestimate there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, more elderlyOregonians and their families who could join the suit. The Oregonaction is similar to other lawsuits against Bankers Life in otherstates.

"This is a company that preys on people when they are at theirmost vulnerable," said Mr. Williams. "When you're weak and sick,at the end of life, that's when you need the benefits. BankersLife stalls and refuses to pay. The company is counting on younot having the energy or ability to fight back. Many peopledon't. And, of those who do, many still don't get paid. That'show the company makes its money. It is a classic consumer scamaimed at the most vulnerable people."

In 2011, Bankers Life ranked worst (19th out of 19 companies) inthe Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services' (DCBS)consumer complaint index. In fact, DCBS figures show Bankers Liferanked worst for consumer complaints every year from 2005 to 2011.

DCBS reports that Oregonians held 91,545 long term care policiesin 2011. That's six percent of residents age 46 and older.People buy the insurance as a safeguard for their old age, to helppay medical expenses and diminish the costs of care providers athome or in assisted living facilities and nursing homes. In 2011,Bankers Life accounted for 10 percent of this market. BankersLife documents, obtained in the Fallow case, show the companyreceives about 350 claims each month from Oregonians.

Messrs. Cauble and Williams drew attention to a 2008 multi-stateinvestigation into consumer complaints against Conseco, Inc., theparent company of Bankers Life. That action resulted in asettlement and agreement with Conseco that included a $2.3 millionfine and $30 million in claims-handling improvements andrestitution by the company. Oregon was not part of that multi-state action. In November 2012, the involved states found thatBankers Life was not complying with the terms of the 2008settlement and another $3.2 million penalty was levied against it.

The named representatives of the Oregon class action are LorraineBates and her husband Ehrman Bates, both of La Grande, Ore.; andEileen Burk, of Sherwood, Ore., and her son David Youngbluth, ofPrineville, Ore.

BOULDER BRANDS: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss N.J. Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Boulder Brands, Inc., is still awaiting a decision on its motionto dismiss a class action lawsuit over milk product labeling inNew Jersey, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In October 2011, a class action lawsuit wasfiled against us in the U.S. District Court for the District ofNew Jersey alleging that the labeling and marketing of our SmartBalance(R) "Fat Free Milk and Omega-3s" products are unfair,deceptive, and improper because they contain 1g of fat from theOmega-3 fatty acid oil blend in the products. We filed a motionto dismiss in response to the complaint, which was granted in partand denied in part on June 25, 2012. On July 25, 2012, theplaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which we moved todismiss on August 10, 2012. A decision on that motion is pending.We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves in thislitigation. We do not expect that the resolution of this matterwill have a material adverse effect on our business."

BOULDER BRANDS: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Calif. Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Boulder Brands, Inc., is still awaiting a decision on its motionto dismiss a class action lawsuit over butter and canola productlabeling in California, according to the Company's Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On July 28, 2012, a class action lawsuit wasfiled in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofCalifornia in San Diego claiming that the labeling and marketingof Smart Balance(R) Butter & Canola Oil Blend products is false,misleading and deceptive. On September 18, 2012, we moved todismiss the complaint. That motion remains pending. Asubstantially similar class action lawsuit related to the labelingand marketing of Smart Balance(R) Butter & Canola Oil Blendproducts was filed on August 9, 2012 in the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of New York. In light of its similarityto the San Diego case, we intend on filing a motion to consolidatethe later-filed New York case with the San Diego case, and thereafter moving to dismiss the New York complaint as well. We believethe allegations contained in both of these Complaints are withoutmerit and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against theseallegations. We do not expect that the resolution of this matterwill have a material adverse effect on our business."

BULGARIA: Stamboliyski Files Radiation Exposure Class Action------------------------------------------------------------Novinite.com reports that residents of the southern Bulgarian cityof Stamboliyski have filed a BGN 2 M lawsuit against the NuclearRegulatory Agency and the National Center of Radiobiology andRadiation Protection, seeking damages for exposure to strong gammaradiation

The class action on behalf of 40 residents of Stamboliyski wassubmitted with the Plovdiv Administrative Court, according toreports of Monitor daily. The class action cites the Act on theLiability for Damage Incurred by the State and the Municipalities.

Most of the class action plaintiffs live near the office of theGitava OOD company where the accident occurred on June 14, 2011.

Gitava specializes in supplying and recharging gamma-raytherapeutic equipment for the treatment of cancer patients. Thecompany was working on an assignment by the Ministry of Health forthe supply and recharging of radioactive sources.

The June 14 accident happened during a recharging of a cobalt-60gamma-radiation facility. Due to an employee error, an alreadycharged facility, instead of an empty one, was taken out of thepiece of equipment, exposing the workers to radiation for about 5minutes.

The regional health inspectorate in Plovdiv fined Gitava OOD withBGN 500 after the incident. The local health authorities assuredthat the accident posed no threat to the residents ofStamboliyski.

One month after the radiation exposure accident, the mostseriously affected were offered treatment in France. On July 11,2011 71-year-old Nikolay Genchev died at the Military MedicalAcademy in Sofia from serious cardiovascular pathology, withsuspicions that the exposure to gamma radiation accelerated hisdeath.

CANADA: C$887MM Accord Okayed in Disabled Veterans' Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------NEWS1130 reports that the Federal Court has rubber-stamped an$887 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit involvingthousands of disabled veterans. The case involved the over three-decade long federal government practice of clawing back themilitary pensions of injured soldiers by the amount of disabilitypayments they received.

The deal includes C$424 million in retroactive payments toveterans dating back to 1976. Over C$82 million has been setaside to cover interest. The rest of the settlement is anestimate of the amount the veterans will be owed in the future.

The law firm which fought the case is also in line for C$35million in fees associated with the case. The case has beenongoing for six years and has been led by Halifax resident andveteran Dennis Manuge.

Class Action Settlement Details

Ottawa Citizen discloses details from the government on the classaction court settlement re SISIP:

The Federal Court of Canada has approved the settlement reachedbetween the Government of Canada and members of the class actionof Dennis Manuge v. Her Majesty The Queen regarding the offset ofPension Act disability benefits from the Service Income SecurityInsurance Plan (SISIP) Long Term Disability benefits.

Class Members will be provided notice of the settlement in themanner set out below:

a. The Notice will be published on Class Counsel's website, andon the front page of the SISIP and Veterans Affairs Canadawebsites;

b. The Notice will be emailed by Class Counsel to class membersof whom they are aware; and

c. Manulife Financial will distribute the Notice to the lastknown address on file for the Class Members.

The Notice will inform class members of the terms of thesettlement and next steps. In summary, the agreement provides thefollowing:

-- Full retroactive payments dating back to 1976, includinginterest. The current estimated value of the settlement isapproximately $887.8 million;

-- an amount, included in the total of $887.8 million, to easeincome tax implications on the retroactive payments;

-- an independent review process for disputes as to pastdisability or the amount of refunds for such disability;

-- clarity about how future benefits should be calculated; and

-- access to a $10 million Scholarship Fund for Class Members,or their family, administered by the Association of Universitiesand Colleges of Canada.

The Canadian Forces Long Term Disability Income Replacementprogram is a disability group insurance plan administered by SISIPFinancial Services that provides Canadian Armed Forces memberswith replacement income protection and vocational rehabilitationif they are released from the Canadian Armed Forces for medicalreasons or take a voluntary release but qualify as being totallydisabled.

In his decision, Justice Robert Barnes lauded the lawyers -- ledby Peter Driscoll of McInnes Cooper in Halifax -- representingabout 7,500 veterans and their families who saw benefits clawedback for 30 years.

"The certification and liability determinations that provided theimpetus for this settlement resulted from the skillful andtenacious advocacy of class counsel in the context of anadversarial contest involving equally skilled and tenaciousopposing counsel," Justice Barnes wrote in his decision dated onApril 4.

"There is no question that the high quality of the legal workperformed by class counsel led to the favorable liabilityoutcome."

In his decision, Justice Barnes was also tasked with determininghow much lawyers for the veterans would be paid. While theplaintiffs' counsel were seeking eight per cent, or about $65million, lawyers for the federal government argued that was toohigh.

Justice Barnes awarded counsel $35 million, or about four percent. In his decision, Justice Barnes wrote that awards must takeinto consideration the time, difficulty, cost, effort and riskinvolved in lawyers taking on class actions. Rewards must beenough to motivate counsel to "take on difficult class litigationinvolving potentially deserving claims that might not otherwise bepursued."

Justice Barnes said the veterans' grievance had been well knownfor more than 30 years and attracted no litigation until Mr.Driscoll took up the claim by the lead plaintiff, Halifax residentDennis Manuge.

McInnes Cooper and Branch MacMaster in Vancouver, B.C., the twofirms involved in representing the veterans, worked for six yearsand amassed more than 8,500 hours of unbilled time.

Unbilled time is valued at more than C$3.2 million. Out-of-pocketexpenses are about C$200,000 and counting. All of this was donewith no guarantee of victory and, thus, being paid.

Mr. Driscoll, in Toronto for meetings, said he was "very pleased"with the decision, which he called "within the band of case law."

While there was a lot of risk in taking on the case, Driscoll saidit had nothing to do with a potentially big payday and everythingto do with fairness and doing right by a vulnerable group,something he said his firm felt strongly about.

"Certainly McInnes Cooper, throughout my pursing this case, backedme up and supported me the whole way."

Margaret Waddell, an experienced class-action lawyer with PaliareRoland in Toronto, said it is "extremely difficult" to get firmsto take on complicated, high-risk class actions, especiallyagainst Ottawa.

The government "has massive resources and fights these casesvigorously," she said. "That's not an easy target."

The pool of people in Canada who engage in this kind of litigationis small because of the risks involved, said Ms. Waddell. Shepoints to Ontario as an example, where there are only about adozen firms heavily involved in class-action work.

"You've got to have a very high risk tolerance to agree to take onthis kind of litigation."

She said that's why lawyers are entitled to be well compensatedfor positive results. She called the result in this case"unbelievably good," and said she thought the lawyers' fees wereon the low end of what is fair.

"I think these guys did a fantastic job with this case," she said."I think the number that they requested was well within the rangeof reasonable."

Dimitri Lascaris, who leads the Siskinds firm's securities class-action group in Ontario, said that while lots of attention is paidto lawyers' fees when they win, very little attention goes tofailures.

"No one talks about how much those cases cost the lawyers,personally and professionally, when they lose. They only talkabout the fabulous successes."

Mr. Lascaris mentioned several Ontario firms that won at trialonly to lose on appeal.

He said when one firm that had obtained a summary judgment onbehalf of veterans had the decision overturned on appeal, it haddevastating financial consequences for the lawyers involved.

That's why so few lawyers take on this kind of work, he said.

"There are far, far more lawyers on Bay Street getting paid $500,$600 an hour with no risk than there are lawyers who are gettingpaid contingency fees doing plaintiffs' work."

CHEVRON USA: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Hot Fuel-------------------------------------------------------Matthew Heller, writing for Law360, reports that a Kansas judge onApril 5 certified a class action alleging Chevron USA Inc. soldgas in California without revealing or accounting for temperatureexpansion, finding the plaintiffs' claims present common questionsthat can be addressed with classwide proof. U.S. District JudgeKathryn H. Vratil rejected Chevron's argument that the claimswould require an individualized inquiry into the gas-purchasingbehavior of each class member, the temperature of fuel at hundredsof retail stations and the pricing decisions of retailers.

COMCAST CORP: Behrend Ruling Takes Toll on Other Malfeasance Suits------------------------------------------------------------------According to Nicole Flatow of Think Progress, in just the firstweek since the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a class action lawsuitby more than 2 million Comcast costumers, the decision is alreadyhaving major repercussions in several other cases allegingmalfeasance by major corporations.

On April 1, the U.S. Supreme Court kicked two other class actionchallenges back to the lower court in light of its ruling inComcast v. Behrend. In both cases, the plaintiffs had securedhard-fought wins just to establish that they could sue as a class.Now, they will have to argue that threshold question yet again --using the new harsher standard imposed by the Court's fiveconservative justices -- before they even have a chance to makethe case that the defendants are liable. And in another casedecided just two days after Comcast, a federal trial judge reliedupon the decision to reject several claims of a class suingApplebee's for wage-and-hour law violations.

In the Comcast ruling issued on March 27, five justices sided withComcast in a significant but little-noticed ruling that deniedconsumers the opportunity to challenge alleged monopolisticpractices and further eviscerated the class action, the mechanismthat enables multiple individuals to band together with thenecessary resources to take on corporate behemoths. The fourdissenting justices who fumed at the audacity of the decision tooksolace in the fact that it should have limited application toother cases. But early indications are that the decision has legs.

In each of the three cases already affected by the ruling, Comcastwas the basis for rejecting rulings in favor of the class andinstead siding with the defending companies. In one, a class ofconsumers alleging particular washing machine models weredefective will have to re-litigate the claim that individuals canjoin the class even if their faulty appliance hasn't yet developedmold and foul odors. In another, a group of RBS Citizensemployees will have to invest even greater resources into merelyarguing that they should not have to challenge the company'swidespread denial of overtime pay one case at a time.

The plaintiffs in both of these cases won the right to sue as aclass both at trial and before the federal appeals panel. In theappeals court decision ruling against Whirlpool, the court citedJudge Richard Posner, a pioneer of the conservative law andeconomics movement, who upheld a class lawsuit in a case allegingthe exact same washer defect. In that case, he rejected claimsthat each plaintiff had to prove individual damages at such anearly stage in order to certify the class, since plaintiffs mustlater prove their own damages before they can be compensated.Posner explains:

A class action is the more efficient procedure for determiningliability and damages in a case such as this involving a defectthat may have imposed costs on tens of thousands of consumers, yetnot a cost to any one of them large enough to justify the expenseof an individual suit. If necessary, a determination of liabilitycould be followed by individual hearings to determine the damagessustained by each class member. . . . The class action procedurewould be efficient not only in cost, but also in efficacy, if weare right that the stakes in an individual case would be too smallto justify the expense of suing, in which event denial of classcertification would preclude any relief.

This is precisely the reason why the class mechanism exists, andwhy it is such a blow to consumers' rights, employees' rights, andcorporate accountability, that the Supreme Court is steadilyeroding its viability. As Reuters reports, several other lawyersare already citing the decision in major lawsuits against thecorporations they represent.

COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Faces Class Action Over ICC Order Violation----------------------------------------------------------------RTTNews.com reports that The Law Offices of Paul G. Neilan, P.C.,on behalf of the plaintiffs, said in a class action lawsuit filedon April 4 in Cook County that Commonwealth Edison, an Exelon Co.,violated an Illinois Commerce Commission or ICC order issued underIllinois' Smart Grid Act.

In exchange for annual formula rate increases, ComEd agreed toupgrade its grid, improve system reliability and install smartmeters at consumers' homes and businesses. Though the ICC orderedComEd to begin smart meter installation by fall 2012, the companyunilaterally pushed back deployment until 2015.

As per the lawsuit, to cover the Smart Grid upgrades, ComEd filedfor a formula rate increase of $1.915 billion with the ICC in2011. When the ICC reduced that amount by $168 million, ComEdallegedly ignored the ICC smart meter order and said it woulddelay installation of smart meters by about two and a half years.

Customers are currently paying for the smart meters, even thoughnone have been installed, the lawsuit said.

ComEd's original smart meter plan included the installation of500,000 new smart meters on Chicago's South and West sides by2013. The smart meters would have provided customers with $182million in savings and other benefits, such as quicker responsetimes to outages and the ability to participate in energy savingprograms, if implemented as per the original schedule.

Chicago energy attorney Paul Neilan, who brought the suit, said,"ComEd has pulled off the biggest bait-and-switch in Illinoishistory. ComEd sold this legislation on the benefits of smartmeters, and customers have already started paying for them. Butthen ComEd took the law into its own hands and willfully defied anorder of the Illinois Commerce Commission. No one will so much assee a smart meter until 2015."

The court's decision paves the way for what a lawyer for the twonamed plaintiffs in the case claimed could be the largest privacycase to ever go to trial in terms of class size and potentialdamages.

ComScore did not respond to a request for comment.

Publicly traded comScore, a Reston Va.-based company that collectsInternet user data and sells it to more 2,000 firms for use inonline marketing and targeted advertising. The company said itmonitors and measures what people do on the Internet and thenturns that information into actionable data for its clients.

The company claims that it captures more than 1.5 trillion user-interactions monthly, or roughly 40% of the monthly page views ofthe Internet. Its clients include some of the world's largeste-commerce sites, online retailers, advertising agencies andpublishers.

ComScore uses OSSProxy software to track users. The software istypically bundled along with free software products like screensavers and music sharing software and is downloaded to the systemsof end users that install them.

Once installed, the software is designed to constantly collect andsend to comScore servers a wide range of data, such as the namesof every file on the computer, information entered into a webbrowser, the contents of PDF files and other data.

ComScore maintains that all of the data it collects is purged ofidentifying information and personal data before it's sold.

However, in August 2011, two Internet users, one from Illinois andthe other from California filed a lawsuit against Comscorealleging various violations of the federal Stored CommunicationAct (SCA), the Electronic Privacy Communication Act (ECPA) and theComputer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

The lawsuit called comScore's software an intrusive surveillancetool that monitors every keystroke and every action taken by auser on the Internet. The suit charged that the company rifledthrough the iPod playlists and web browsing histories ofsmartphone users.

To collect data, comScore's software modifies computer firewallsettings, redirects Internet traffic, and can be upgraded andcontrolled remotely, the complaint alleged. The suit challengedcomScore's assertions that it filtered out personal informationfrom data sold to third parties, and of intercepting data it hadno business to access.

In a 20-page ruling on April 2, District Judge James Holderman ofthe United States District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois granted the two plaintiffs the class action status theyhad been seeking. The ruling means that any individual whodownloaded and installed comScore's tracking software on theirsystems after 2005 now has a claim against the company.

"We sought certification of two classes," said Jay Edelson, thelawyer representing the two named individuals. "The larger classconsists of essentially all of the millions of people whodownloaded comScore software since 2005. The subclass consists ofa subset of the primary class who downloaded comScore softwareduring a specific time frame and but were never provided afunctional hyperlink to the user agreement describing how thesoftware worked."

The court granted class certification with regard to all of theprimary claims pertaining to violations of the SCA, ECPA and CFAAhe said. Under the SCA and ECPA each class member would beentitled to a maximum of $1,000 in statutory damages, he said.

The judge, however, denied class action status for a third claimrelating to unjust enrichment against comScore.

According to Online Media Daily, the lawsuit was filed by twocomScore panelists, Jeff Dunstan of California and Illinoisresident Mike Harris, who allege that they installed comScore'ssoftware after downloading a free product -- like a screensaver,game or program that creates greeting cards.

They also contend that comScore's marketing partners -- who bundlecomScore software with freeware -- often don't discloseinformation about comScore until after users have starteddownloading the free programs. Messrs. Dunstan and Harris arguethat comScore violated various federal privacy laws by capturinginformation from people's computers without their informedconsent.

comScore unsuccessfully argued that the case didn't lend itself toclass-action certification because questions about consent requirecase-by-case analysis. But Judge Holderman ruled that the lawsuitpresented many common questions, including whether the comScore'sdata collection practices went beyond what the company said in itsterms of service.

The ruling will likely increase the pressure on comScore to settlethe case, Seattle-based Internet legal expert Venkat Balasubramanitells Online Media Daily. One reason is that the relatively largesize of the class means that comScore potentially faces the riskof high damages if it loses at trial. Another is that the majorquestion in the case appears to be whether comScore's terms ofservice disclosed enough information about its data collection.

"It comes down to a consent issue," Mr. Balasubramani says. "Inother cases, there's more of a gray area about about whether theconduct fits within a statute."

For instance, consumers in a lawsuit against Facebook argued thatthe company's Sponsored Stories violated a 1971 California lawregulating the use of names and photos in ads. Facebook agreed tosettle that litigation for $20 million, but it was never clearthat Facebook's practices were covered by the California law,which was passed before the emergence of social networks.comScore did not respond to Online Media Daily's request forcomment.

CONNEXTIONS INC: Former Employees File Fraud Class Action---------------------------------------------------------Fort Mill Times reports that Kendall Law Group announced that agroup of former employees has brought a class action lawsuitagainst Connextions, Inc., Ayava Staffing Professionals, and twoof their managers, alleging fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.The employees allege they and a group of employees were all hiredby Connextions and Ayava to sell insurance products for severallarge insurance carriers, including Wellpoint, Wellcare, Optum RX,and United Healthcare, during what is called an open enrollmentperiod between October 15, 2012, and December 7, 2012. At thetime they were recruited and hired, the employees allege they weretold they would earn between $17.00 and $25.00 per hour. Althoughthey were hired at a lower hourly wage, usually $13.00 per hour,the employees were allegedly told they would receive commissionsbased on their sales, which would raise their hourly rate by $4.00to $12.00 per hour. Despite repeated inquiries by the employees,and repeated assurances by the defendants, the employees allegethey were never paid their commissions.

"The defendants repeatedly told these people that they would bepaid commissions on their sales. It was represented to them thatway from day one, and it was represented to them that way everytime they asked about their commissions," says Matt Scott, head ofthe Kendall Law Group's employment practice, and lead counsel forthe employees. "They were told the commissions would be paid.They weren't," Mr. Scott said.

The lawsuit has fourteen named plaintiff/employees, and allegesthe existence of a class of around 600 other employees, all ofwhom the lawsuit alleges were short-changed by the defendants.The case is pending in the 14th Judicial District Court in Dallas.

Gurang Land Council representative Cherissma Blackman says sacredsites in the Gladstone area have been destroyed to facilitate theconstruction of three CSG to liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants onCurtis Island.

"We have been to these proponents and put forward sustainablepartnerships for environmental sustainability . . . we are noteven considered to be a party that has an interest," she said.

"We cannot still practice our culture and we have no access tothese cultural sites."

She says members of the Port Curtis Coral Coast Native Title ClaimGroup, which covers the area from Gladstone to Bundaberg, areentitled to compensation but they are yet to see a payout.

Ms. Blackman says that has prompted moves to launch a class actionclaim.

"That's left a lot of our people behind the eight ball in tryingto get business development happening, to try and put in fortenders . . . skilling up our people and keeping futuregenerations employed," she said.

"There are serious talks and a lot of information has been handedover."

Save the Reef spokeswoman Libby Conners says it is a widespreadissue.

"This has gone on now for a couple of years," she said.

"I think the Aboriginal community has been incredibly patient andtried avenues of direct discussion both with the gas companies andGladstone Ports Corporation, but several members within thecommunity are saying enough is enough.

"I've certainly seen correspondence between the Burrungam peopleon the Darling Downs and QGC [Queensland Gas Company] in which theelders who sign the ILUA [Indigenous Land Use Agreement] objectedto the clearing of very important cultural heritage near the Caniagas field.

"The company basically said there was nothing they could do aboutit -- they've done it -- that was it, there was no redresswhatsoever."

U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto ruled that investors hadreceived sufficient disclosure to understand the risks ofinvesting in the trusts. Six investors who bought the securities-- and unexpectedly found themselves unable to cash in theirshares -- alleged that they had been misled by the adviser aboutthe risks and had suffered financial harm. The Brooklyn judgerejected those arguments.

The ruling was a victory for the financial adviser, who stillfaces dozens of related arbitration proceedings and was sanctionedlast year by a regulator.

A real estate investment trust, or REIT, is a company establishedto own a real estate portfolio. Shareholders receive regularincome from their investments, typically a distribution ofprofits. Shares of many REITs are publicly traded, but thoseinvolved in this case -- five REITS formed by Richmond, Va.-basedApple REIT Companies Inc. -- were not.

"David Lerner Associates Inc. is pleased that the federal court'sdecision completely dismisses all of the class action's federalsecurities law claims," spokesman David Chauvin said in astatement. Mr. Chauvin said the ruling appeared to confirm thatthe Apple REITs are currently functioning as anticipated.

Andrew Stoltmann, a Chicago attorney who is representing more than20 investors in arbitration cases against Lerner and the REITs,said he was surprised by the ruling but that it didn't affect hiscases.

"It's not over by a long shot," Mr. Stoltmann said. "All thearbitrations aren't impacted in the least."

Mr. Stoltmann is arguing that the investments weren't suitable forhis clients, who tend to be retired or near retirement age -- aclaim that echoes a regulatory sanction against the company.

The class-action case arose after the Financial IndustryRegulatory Authority filed a complaint against the adviser and itschief executive, David Lerner, in 2011 in connection with itsmarketing of the Apple REITs. That complaint prompted manyinvestors to seek to exercise an option to redeem their shares,but the REITs only honored a small percentage of those requests.

Last year FINRA ordered the company to pay $12 million inrestitution to investors who purchased shares of Apple REIT Ten.FINRA said that Mr. Lerner and his firm "targeted unsophisticatedand elderly customers," misled investors and failed to accuratelydisclose the risks in investing in the securities.

Mr. Lerner was suspended from the securities industry for one yearand fined $250,000, and the firm agreed to change its marketingpractices. Neither Mr. Lerner nor the firm admitted towrongdoing.

ERA GROUP: Court Denied Fee Request Related to Class Suit---------------------------------------------------------Era Group Inc.'s request for payment of certain costs, expenses,and attorneys' fees related to a class action lawsuit it wasdefending was denied by a federal court in Delaware last year,according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2012.

On June 12, 2009, a purported civil class action was filed againstSEACOR, Era Group Inc., Era Helicopters LLC and three otherdefendants (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Delaware, Superior OffshoreInternational, Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-438(D. Del.). The Complaint alleged that the Defendants violatedfederal antitrust law by conspiring with each other to raise, fix,maintain or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services inthe U.S. Gulf of Mexico during the period January 2001 to December2005. The purported class of plaintiffs included all directpurchasers of such services and the relief sought includedcompensatory damages and treble damages. On September 4, 2009, theDefendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. On September14, 2010, the Court entered an order dismissing the Complaint. OnSeptember 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion forreconsideration and amendment and a motion for re-argument (the"Motions"). On November 30, 2010, the Court granted the Motions,amended the Court's September 14, 2010 Order to clarify that thedismissal was without prejudice, permitted the filing of anamended Complaint, and authorized limited discovery with respectto the new allegations in the amended Complaint. Following thecompletion of such limited discovery, onFebruary 11, 2011, the Defendants filed a motion for summaryjudgment to dismiss the amended Complaint with prejudice. OnJune 23, 2011, the District Court granted summary judgment for theDefendants. On July 22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice ofappeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On July27, 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the DistrictCourt's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. OnAugust 9, 2011, Defendants moved for certain excessive costs,expenses, and attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 (the"Fee Motion"). On October 9, 2012, the District Court denied theFee Motion.

EXXONMOBIL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Mayflower Oil Spill------------------------------------------------------------KTHV reports that the first lawsuit relating to the ExxonMobil oilspill in Mayflower, Arkansas, has been filed. The plaintiffs areresidents who live in two houses on Ledrick Circle in Mayflower.The defendant is the ExxonMobil Corporation.

The Class Action lawsuit states that, "Defendants are strictlyliable for ultra-hazardous conditions that proximately causeinjuries to people" following the oil spill in Mayflower one weekago. The suit states the "Plaintiffs and the class membersrespectfully pray for damages caused by Defendants' strict(absolute) liability in an amount in excess of $75,000.00,exclusive of costs and interest for individual damages in excessof $5,000,000.00 of costs and interest for damages in theaggregate."

ExxonMobil's Pegasus Pipeline ruptured in the Northwoodsneighborhood of Mayflower, causing heavy crude oil to cover yardsand streets in the area. Exxon has said it will pay for allcleanup costs associated with the spill; an estimated cleanup timeand cost analysis have not been provided.

Law360's Daniel Wilson reports that plaintiffs Kathryn Chunn andKimla Greene, the March 29 rupture of the allegedly defectivepipeline in Mayflower, Ark., was the result of negligentoperation, monitoring and maintenance by Exxon and two of itssubsidiaries. The resultant spill had caused immediate andongoing environmental harm.

Pegasus Pipeline Measure

The Associated Press reports that officials with an Arkansas watersupplier approved a measure on April 4 asking ExxonMobil for aplan to move an oil pipeline away from an area that drains intothe main source of drinking water for Little Rock and severalother communities.

The move by Central Arkansas Water's Board of Commissioners comesnearly two weeks after ExxonMobil's Pegasus pipeline ruptured andspilled thousands of barrels of oil in Mayflower, a small cityabout 25 miles northwest of Little Rock.

ExxonMobil has said the March 29 spill didn't affect Mayflower'sdrinking water supply, which comes from a lake about 65 miles awayand is managed by a different supplier.

But that hasn't ended concerns about drinking water in the region,as the pipeline runs through part of the Lake Maumelle Watershed,the area that drains into the main drinking water supply forhundreds of thousands of people.

Central Arkansas Water's board is also asking ExxonMobil to comeup with short-term solutions to reduce the risk of an oil spill inthe watershed.

"Even with all these measures that we're trying to do to minimizeour risk and improve our emergency response, there's really noguarantee unless the pipeline itself is removed from thewatershed," said Robert Hart, a technical services officer withCentral Arkansas Water.

Central Arkansas Water asked ExxonMobil officials to attend theApril 4 meeting, but no one from the company showed up. During apress conference earlier in the day, ExxonMobil on-scenecoordinator Karen Tyrone said company officials had spoken withpeople from Central Arkansas Water.

"We understand their concerns," Ms. Tyrone said. ". . . Theyunderstand that we're in a recovery effort right now and our focusright now is the Mayflower community."

Officials said residents of four of the more than 20 homesevacuated because of the oil spill could go home as early asThursday. Federal on-scene coordinator Nick Brescia said theresidents of eight or nine other homes could return in the comingdays. It's not clear when the rest could come back, but somepeople may not want to return as cleanup crews and their heavyequipment are still trying to get rid of what's left of the spill.

"We have not had a strong interest to get back into homes,"Ms. Tyrone said.

So far, crews have recovered more than 28,000 barrels of oilywater and about 2,000 cubic yards of oiled soil and debris,according to a statement from ExxonMobil and local officials.Officials estimate that about 5,000 barrels of oil spilled, thougha final number isn't expected until the pipeline has been repairedand refilled. Officials hope to remove the ruptured part of thePegasus pipeline in the next few days, Ms. Tyrone said. Then,investigators may be able to piece together why it ruptured.

"You cannot know what happened until you get this piece of pipeout and you get it to a lab," she said.

FIRST AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Various Class Suits-------------------------------------------------------First American Financial Corporation continues to defend variousclass action lawsuits that challenge practices in the its titleinsurance business, according to the Company's Form 10-K filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscalyear ended December 31, 2012.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company andits subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company'stitle insurance business, though a limited number of cases alsopertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that theCompany, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents:

* charged an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance transaction, including:

-- Hamilton v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., filed on August 25, 2008 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of North Carolina, Wake County,

-- Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on September 29, 2010 and pending in the United States District Court of New Jersey,

-- Lang v. First American Title Insurance Company of New York, filed on March 9, 2012 and pending in the United States District Court of New York,

-- Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on February 26, 2009 and pending in the United States District Court of Pennsylvania,

-- Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho,

-- Mitchell-Tracey v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., filed on April 30, 2012 and pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Maryland,

-- Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on February 14, 2004 and pending in the Circuit Court, Nassau County, Florida, and

-- Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on December 19, 2005 and pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

All of these lawsuits are putative class actions. A court has only granted class certification in Hamilton, Lewis, Raffone and Slapikas. The Company has been unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company believes the amount is immaterial to the financial statements as a whole.

* purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as an inducement to refer title insurance underwriting business to the Company or gave items of value to title insurance agents and others for referrals of business, in each case in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, including:

-- Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on June 12, 2007 and pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

In Edwards a narrow class has been certified. The Company has been unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

* conspired with its competitors to fix prices or otherwise engaged in anticompetitive behavior, including:

-- Klein v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., filed on July 10, 2012 and pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Klein is a putative class action for which a class has not been certified. The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

* engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, including:

-- Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., filed on October 16, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court of Connecticut, and

-- Katin v. First American Signature Services, Inc., et al., filed on May 9, 2007 and pending in the United States District Court of Massachusetts.

Katin is a putative class action for which a class has not been certified. The class originally certified in Gale was subsequently decertified. The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

-- Bartko v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on November 8, 2011, and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles.

Bartko is a putative class action for which a class has not been certified. The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

* overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and services provided in connection with the closing of real estate transactions, denied home warranty claims, recorded telephone calls, acted as an unauthorized trustee and gave items of value to developers, builders and others as inducements to refer business in violation of certain other laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain obligations, including:

-- Carrera v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation, filed on September 23, 2009 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

-- Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on January 22, 2009 and pending in the United States District Court of New Jersey,

-- Coleman v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation, et al., filed on August 24, 2009 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

-- Eide v. First American Title Company, filed on February 26, 2010 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern,

-- Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on July 14, 2008 and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,

-- Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

-- Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

-- Muehling v. First American Title Company, filed on December 11, 2012 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda,

-- Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

-- Smith v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on November 23, 2011 and pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington,

-- Tavenner v. Talon Group, filed on August 18, 2009 and pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and

-- Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

All of these lawsuits, except Kirk, Sjobring, and Tavenner, are putative class actions for which a class has not been certified. In Sjobring a class was certified but that certification was subsequently vacated. The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

FULL TILT: June 14 Hearing Set for Motion to Dismiss Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------------Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,reports that a federal judge has set a June hearing to heararguments over a motion to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to recoupgambling losses.

Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, JudyFahrner in January sued 26 defendants, both individuals andcompanies associated with Full Tilt Poker, a website that offersonline poker rooms.

Ms. Fahrner claims that she and other Illinois residents investedmoney into the site's poker games and then lost it all when theDepartment of Justice shut down the card rooms. Her suit seeksclass action status to recover gambling losses and up to threetimes the amount of losses in damages under the Illinois LossRecovery Act (LRA).

In a memorandum supporting their March motion to dismiss, two ofthe defendants -- Erik Seidel and Tiltware LLC -- assert that thesuit should be dismissed because Ms. Fahrner failed to state acause of action under the LRA and is barred from bringing thiscase based on a prior court-ordered settlement.

Mr. Seidel, a professional poker player from Las Vegas, andTiltware, the software developer and licensor for Full Tilt,contend in their memo that Ms. Fahrner "invokes and misapplies anancient and arguably anachronistic gambling loss recoverystatute." They claim that Ms. Fahrner fails to allege elements ofthe cause of action under the LRA by not identifying "a singlepurported loser of a single quantifiable loss and a single date onwhich an alleged loss occurred or could have conceivablyoccurred." And even if she did allege the essential elements ofher claim, Seidel and Tiltware contend that her complaint shouldstill be dismissed as it is barred by the doctrine of resjudicata.

"All of the possible 'gambling losses' that could have beenpurportedly incurred by Illinois residents on the Full Tilt Pokerwebsite have already been recovered in a prior court orderedsettlement instituted by another third-party relator who shares anidentity of interests with plaintiff," the pair of defendantsassert in their memo.

The prior court-ordered settlement, the memo states, came in acase brought by Cassandra Sobota in 2011 in the Cook CountyCircuit Court. She made similar claims under the LRA and lastyear, filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss her suit withprejudice.

A judge granted her motion and wrote in an order that the LRA gaveMs. Sobota standing to initiate civil action on behalf of allpersons who suffered gambling losses of $50 or more if they failedto pursue their remedy under the LRA within six months, but thatshe then failed to do so within six months.

The order also barred any and all future claims under the LRAagainst the defendants, the majority of whom are named in Ms.Fahrner's suit, pursuant to the settlement in Ms. Sobota's case.

Pointing to Ms. Sobota's case, the defendants assert that"traditional qui tam principles would foreclosure a subsequentrecovery for the same losses by plaintiff in this case. [Fahrner]cannot duplicate the recovery Sobota already claimed."

Ms. Fahrner, the defendants argue, tries to get around this hurdleby claiming that there have been additional gambling losses since2012 that no one has recouped. That claim is "absurd" and "whollyunsubstantiated," they assert.

In response to these two defendants' request for a hearing ontheir motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Michael Reagan lastmonth set a June 14 hearing. Since then, some of the defendantshave filed their own motions to dismiss and requests for hearings.

Court records show that Reagan also scheduled the case for a finalpre-trial conference in October 2014 and a jury trial in November2014.

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend RESPA-Related Suits----------------------------------------------------------------One of Genworth Financial, Inc.'s mortgage insurance subsidiariescontinues to defend class action lawsuits alleging that certain"captive reinsurance arrangements" were in violation of RealEstate Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974, according to theCompany's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "Beginning in December 2011 and continuingthrough January 2013, one of our U.S. mortgage insurancesubsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage insuranceparticipants and mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelveputative class action lawsuits alleging that certain "captivereinsurance arrangements" were in violation of RESPA. Those casesare captioned as follows: Samp, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,N.A., et al., United States District Court for the CentralDistrict of California; White, et al., v. The PNC FinancialServices Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court for theEastern District of Pennsylvania; Menichino, et al. v. CitibankNA, et al., United States District Court for the Western Districtof Pennsylvania; McCarn, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of California;Manners, et al., v. Fifth Third Bank, et al., United StatesDistrict court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Riddle,et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Rulisonet al. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. et al., United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York; Barlee, etal. v. First Horizon National Corporation, et al., United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corp., et al., United StatesDistrict Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Orange, etal. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Courtfor the Central District of California; Hill et al. v. FlagstarBank, FSB, et al., United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania; and Moriba BA, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc.,et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania. Plaintiffs allege that "captive reinsurancearrangements" with providers of private mortgage insurance wherebya mortgage lender through captive reinsurance arrangementsreceived a portion of the borrowers' private mortgage insurancepremiums were in violation of RESPA and unjustly enriched thedefendants for which plaintiffs seek declaratory relief andunspecified monetary damages, including restitution. The Rulisoncase was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs on July 3, 2012.The McCarn case was dismissed by the Court with prejudice as toour subsidiary and certain other defendants on November 9, 2012.We intend to vigorously defend the remaining actions."

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Unit Awaits Ruling on Bid for Certification----------------------------------------------------------------One of Genworth Financial, Inc.'s non-insurance subsidiaries isawaiting a ruling on a motion for class certification in thelawsuit captioned Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. GenworthFinancial Wealth Management, Inc., et al., according to theCompany's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In December 2009, one of our non-insurancesubsidiaries, one of the subsidiary's officers and GenworthFinancial, Inc. were named in a putative class action lawsuitcaptioned Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth FinancialWealth Management, Inc., et al., in the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allegesecurities law and other violations involving the selection ofmutual funds by our subsidiary on behalf of certain of its PrivateClient Group clients. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetarydamages and other relief. In response to our motion to dismiss thecomplaint in its entirety, the Court granted the motion to dismissthe state law fiduciary duty claim and denied the motion todismiss the remaining federal claims. Oral argument on plaintiffs'motion to certify a class, originally scheduled for January 9,2013, was conducted on January 30, 2013, but the Court has not yetreached a decision. We will continue to vigorously defend thisaction."

HARVEST GROUP: Investors File C$500-Mil. Class Action-----------------------------------------------------Jason van Rassel, writing for Calgary Herald, reports thatinvestors have launched a class-action lawsuit seeking to recoverC$500 million they put into a series of beleaguered real estatecompanies and related ventures promoted by a former Lethbridgepastor.

A statement of claim filed in Court of Queen's Bench on April 3alleges hundreds of people invested their savings in a scheme thatimproperly siphoned millions of dollars to Ronald James Aitkensand seven other people named in the suit.

"Most of these people are in the nature of mom-and-pop retailinvestors," lawyer Blair Yorke-Slader of Bennett Jones LLP inCalgary said in an interview.

The suit alleges Mr. Aitkens created a series of entities calledthe Harvest Group of Companies, which raised C$500 million for 16ventures in real estate development, resource development andfinancial investment since 2001. However, the suit claims none ofthe projects were viable; it alleges they were bait used tosolicit money from investors that wound up in the pockets of Mr.Aitkens and other Harvest Group principals.

"Each (project) was merely a shell, sham or captive company formedand/or incorporated with the purpose of obscuring this commonpurpose and organization," reads the statement of claim.

"Although ostensibly in the business of providing legitimate realestate investments and developments, the Harvest Group ofCompanies was really in the business of improperly enriching thepersonal defendants."

Mr. Aitken's lawyer couldn't be reached for comment on thelawsuit's claims, which haven't been proven in court.

The statement of claim names 11 plaintiffs who have steppedforward on behalf of hundreds of investors allegedly victimized bythe defendants. The precise number of investors eligible to jointhe suit isn't yet known.

The suit said Harvest raised its money with a network of agentswho sold shares and bonds in its ventures, often through word-of-mouth and free seminars. The agents themselves were misled intoproviding false information to investors by the defendants, thesuit alleges.

Although the plaintiffs don't claim to know the exact role each ofthe defendants allegedly played, the suit describes Mr. Aitkens asthe "directing or controlling mind" of the companies involved.

"Aitkens personally moved the scheme forward, mademisrepresentations as described above to the investors andreceived benefit from investors' funds. Aitkens was the 'face' ofthe Harvest Group of Companies and of the investment scheme," thestatement of claim said.

The suit claims the defendants enriched themselves mainly through"nonsensical management fees" and by transferring investors' moneyout of the projects and into separate, but related, companies theyalso controlled.

In the case of a proposed industrial park in the town of Millet,south of Edmonton, the defendants raised C$35 million frominvestors. The suit alleges C$22.7 million was used to buy theland "at an inflated and improvident value" from another HarvestGroup company. The defendants "improperly paid themselves" C$9.1million in management fees and made C$2 million in payments to"affiliated entities and unknown parties," according to thestatement of claim. Yet despite raising C$35 million in capital,"few if any development activities have taken place with respectto the Railside Industrial Park project," the claim said.

Some of the other projects Harvest raised money for include anoffice complex in downtown Calgary, as well as residentialdevelopments in southwest Calgary, Airdrie and Rocky View County.The suit alleges not only have the projects never been built,investors' bonds were never redeemed either. Investors also putmoney into a Harvest Group company, Foundation Mortgage, thatclaimed to offer financing to other real estate developmentcompanies. The suit alleges the money was used instead to makeimproper loans to other Harvest Group ventures.

"By either fraudulent design or extraordinary incompetence, thedefendants, or certain of them, thereby ensured that bondholderswould never be repaid," the claim says.

Initially, some Foundation bondholders did receive a return ontheir investment -- but the suit claims they were paid with moneyimproperly taken from elsewhere.

"In truth, (Foundation) paid investors with money from otherinvestors, sometimes even from other projects, in a Ponzi-likefashion," the suit says.

The suit must be certified by a judge before it can proceed.

In addition to C$500 million restitution, the suit also seeksunspecified damages for breach of contract, misrepresentation,breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment andother alleged torts. The suit also seeks a freeze on thedefendants' assets, as well as the appointment of a receiver orsupervisor to oversee the sale of the real estate held by theHarvest companies with any proceeds going to the plaintiffs.

The case is scheduled to be heard in Calgary.

HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over CR-V Lock Malfunctions-----------------------------------------------------------Jim Strickland, writing for WSBTV.com, reports that a class actionlawsuit filed in a New Jersey federal court accuses Honda MotorCorporation of fraud and deceit in relation to the sale of 2007 to2011 CR-V crossovers.

A Henry County woman e-mailed consumer investigator Jim Stricklandafter it happened to her. Amanda Morrison says she wanted to warmup her 2007 Honda CR-V before leaving home with her son. She wasabout to climb in with her son.

"And then I closed the door so I could go get him, and after Icame back out the spare key wouldn't unlock it," she recalled.

No tow service would bring the car to her Honda dealer because itwas still running. A locksmith took two hours and charged $175.

Ms. Morrison showed Mr. Strickland how pushing the unlock buttonresults in an instant relock. It happened time and again asStrickland's photographer took video.

"It's very frustrating. It's a safety issue too. If we getlocked in the car and there's a fire or what, we can't get out intime," Ms. Morrison said.

"What do you think Honda ought to do about it?" Mr. Strickland Ms.asked Gibbs. "Fix it. I would like and need for them to fix it."

"They knew it was a safety issue, they had problems is priormodels of the CR-V. We're alleging both consumer fraud and breachof warranty claims as well," said attorney Matt Schelkopf, whofiled the class action.

Honda refused to comment on the suit. Mr. Strickland gave themcontact information for the owners he spoke with.

LEBANON SCHOOL: Judge Approves Truancy Class Action Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------Melissa Nardo, writing for FOX43, reports that Chief Judge YvetteKane approved a $265,000 settlement on April 4. It's part of aclass action lawsuit filed by the Public Interest Law Center andthe NAACP against Lebanon School District for overchargingstudents on truancy violations. The law states that the maximumfine for a single truancy violation is $300. Lebanon exceededthat fine amount hundreds of times from 2004 to 2009. "The law isclear. A truancy fine can be $300 per citation. The schooldistrict was giving well in excess of that number of fines," saidattorney for the victims, Michael Churchill. "Some of these fineswere astronomical particularly since most of these fines are beingpaid by single mothers supporting themselves on very low incomes."

A total of 248 class members will split $108k depending on howmuch they paid in fines. In one case, a single mother paid three$9,000 fines. "One woman had three $9,000 fines in one year forher three children because the school district was not willing toaccept the fact that her children were being home-schooled. Eventhough they accepted that fact in other years," said Mr.Churchill. "We had literally thousands of them that were morethan $300 per citation and that's why there is 108,000 dollarsthat the school district is going to have to return."

The school district will also have to pay $147,000 for their legalfees. Lower courts already reduced about 100 to 150 differentunpaid fines in the amount of $325,000.

Families who will be receiving money will be notified by mail.They will have to fill out a claim form within six months. Theyshould receive their settlement money by Thanksgiving.

"For a few struggling families, a few hundred dollars would seemlike a major windfall. This is a truly fair resolution to thiscase," said Chief Judge Yvette Kane.

"A lot of people have left town because it was so overwhelmingthey couldn't keep up with their bills. They had to choose, do wepay our fines, or do we pay our light bill, do we feed our familyor do we go to jail. They go to jail if they don't pay theirfines. Parents have been incarcerated for not paying theirfines," said Leticia Fuentes-Keith with the NAACP. The NAACPjoined the lawsuit because they believe the district was targetingminorities. "They say they are not targeting minorities, but onceyou read the names you can come to your own conclusion," saidMs. Fuentes-Keith.

Dignae Rivera is not part of the lawsuit but said she has paidhundreds of dollars in fines to the district. "He [her son] wasabsent for 14 days and I would give him the excuse but you know ayoungster he wouldn't bring them to school. So I did have aconstable come to my house to arrest me."

Lebanon School District declined to comment.

LIBERTY MEDIA: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits in Del. & NY-----------------------------------------------------------------Liberty Media Corporation continues to defend itself from classaction lawsuits filed by shareholders and pending in Delaware andNew York, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2012.

In re SIRIUS XM Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 7800-CS(Del. Ch.). On August 21, 2012, plaintiff City of Miami PoliceRelief and Pension Fund (the "Fund") filed a complaint in theCourt of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Liberty, SIRIUSXM, Liberty Radio LLC and certain Liberty designees on the boardof directors of SIRIUS XM (David J.A. Flowers, Gregory B. Maffei,John C. Malone, Carl E. Vogel, and Vanessa A. Wittman (together,the "SIRIUS XM Designees")). On August 23, 2012, plaintiff BrianCohen filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State ofDelaware against the same individuals and seeking substantiallysimilar relief as set forth in the complaint filed by the Fund. ByOrder of the Court dated October 2, 2012, the two actions wereconsolidated under the caption In re SIRIUS XM ShareholderLitigation. Plaintiffs the Fund and Brian Cohen filed an AmendedVerified Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "AmendedComplaint") in the consolidated action on October 5, 2012. TheAmended Complaint alleges that Liberty and the SIRIUS XM Designeesbreached their fiduciary duty in connection with the investmentagreement entered into in 2009 (the "Investment Agreement")relating to Liberty's original investment in SIRIUS XM andLiberty's subsequent acquisition of SIRIUS XM shares and Liberty'sapplication to the Federal Communications Commission for consentto the transfer of de jure control of the various FCC licenses andauthorizations held by SIRIUS XM or its subsidiaries. The AmendedComplaint also seeks a declaration that a provision in theInvestment Agreement that prohibits SIRIUS XM from adoptingcertain anti-takeover provisions is invalid under Delaware law anda declaration that upon the expiration of the three yearstandstill in the Investment Agreement Liberty became aninterested stockholder subject to the restrictions and limitationsset forth by Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.Plaintiffs have filed a series of amended complaints in the actionand the parties have agreed to a briefing schedule for motions todismiss the latest amended complaint.

Cohen v. SIRIUS XM Radio Inc., et al., Case No. 7806 (Del. Ch.).On August 23, 2012, plaintiff Brian Cohen filed a complaint in theCourt of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The allegations andrelief sought in this action are against the same individuals andare substantially similar to those in the In re SIRIUS XMShareholder Litigation.

Montero v. SIRIUS XM Radio Inc., Index No. 653012/2012 (N.Y. Sup.Ct. Cnty. of New York). On August 27, 2012, plaintiff AndrewMontero brought a shareholder class action on behalf of theshareholders of the common stock of SIRIUS XM against SIRIUS XM,the SIRIUS XM Designees, Liberty and Liberty Radio LLC. The actionwas commenced in the Supreme Court for the State of New York inNew York County. Mr. Montero alleges breaches of fiduciary duty,aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks adeclaratory judgment, with allegations and relief soughtsubstantially similar to those in the City of Miami litigation.Although the parties have discussed acceptance of service in thematter, no agreement on service has yet been filed.

LOCKHEED MARTIN: Civil Suit Ruling Prelude to Class Action----------------------------------------------------------Rob Scott, writing for Moorestown Patch, reports that a decisionin a longstanding civil suit against Lockheed Martin is likelyimminent, and could be the first step in a much larger class-action lawsuit against the company, according to an attorneyinvolved with the case.

Julie LaVan -- julie@jlavanlaw.com -- of LaVan Law in Moorestown,said her clients -- Michael and Ashley Leese, and Jay and RaquelWinkler -- filed suit against Lockheed back in July 2011, allegingthat dangerous contaminants leaked into the soil and groundwaterbeneath their homes in the Wexford development across the streetfrom the plant on Borton Landing Road.

According to the suit, the presence of the compounds -- chiefly,chlorinated chemical solvents trichloroethylene (TCE) andtetrachloroethylene (PCE) -- in the ground is a result of theiruse in cleaning metal parts at the Lockheed facility. Ms. LaVansaid the chemicals were most likely first used by Lockheed'spredecessors at the site, namely RCA, GE and Martin Marietta.

The lawsuit claims Lockheed Martin inherited responsibility forthe contaminants in the ground and newly discovered vaporintrusion in the homes of the Leeses and Winklers.

Ms. LaVan said Lockheed has admitted to using the chemicals, butonly in very small amounts, and has claimed the levels detected insome of the homes in Wexford do not post a danger. That's "amatter of state interpretation," Ms. LaVan said, explaining someof the homes tested had levels of TCE and PCE that exceeded stateDepartment of Environmental Protection guidelines, and somedidn't.

However, Ms. LaVan said, "the EPA (Environmental ProtectionAgency) has determined any exposure is considered dangerous."According to a release issued by Ms. LaVan's firm, exposure to thechemicals -- over both long- and short-term periods of time -- canresult in eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches; loss ofcoordination; nausea; damage to liver, kidney and central nervoussystems; and may even cause cancer.

The Leeses and the Winklers are seeking unspecificed damages basedon the value of their property, and for personal injury. The suitalso seeks an injunction to facilitate the remediation of off-siteresidences and to prohibit future contamination.

In accordance with New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection (NJDEP) regulations, Lockheed implemented a remediationplan that continues today. A series of monitoring wells wereinstalled at the facility, as well as along Borton Landing Road toidentify and prevent migration of contaminated groundwater.

Ms. LaVan said she anticipates a decision in the case, which isapproacing trial in U.S. District Court in Camden, in the verynear future.

"It is moving rather quickly," she said.

A spokesman for Lockheed Martin declined to comment on the case,stating, "We do not comment on ongoing litigation."

According to Ms. LaVan, a class-action lawsuit could be in theoffing, involving more residents. The likelihood of such a casehowever, could depend on the success of the existing suit.

MAKO SURGICAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit--------------------------------------------------------------MAKO Surgical Corp. awaits ruling on motion to dismiss theconsolidated class action lawsuit captioned In re MAKO SurgicalCorp. Securities Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In May 2012, two shareholder complaints werefiled in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofFlorida against the Company and certain of its officers anddirectors as purported class actions on behalf of all purchasersof the Company's common stock between January 9, 2012 and May 7,2012. The cases were filed under the captions James H. Harrison,Jr. v. MAKO Surgical Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-60875 and BrianParker v. MAKO Surgical Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-60954. The courtconsolidated the Harrison and Parker complaints under the captionIn re MAKO Surgical Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 12-60875-CIV-Cohn/Seltzer, and appointed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension andRetirement System and Baltimore County Employees' RetirementSystem to serve as co-lead plaintiffs. In September 2012, theco-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that expanded theproposed class period through July 9, 2012. The amended complaintalleges the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, President andChairman, Maurice R. Ferr‚, M.D., and its Chief Financial Officer,Fritz L. LaPorte, violated federal securities laws by makingmisrepresentations and omissions during the proposed class periodabout the Company's financial guidance for 2012 that artificiallyinflated the Company's stock price. The amended complaint seeks anunspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest, attorneys'and expert fees, and costs. In October 2012, the Company, Dr.Ferr‚, and Mr. LaPorte filed a motion to dismiss the amendedcomplaint in its entirety. The court has not ruled on that motion.

"Additionally, in June and July 2012, four shareholder derivativecomplaints were filed against the Company, as nominal defendant,and its board of directors, as well as Dr. Ferr‚ and, in twocases, Mr. LaPorte. Those complaints allege that the Company'sdirectors and certain officers violated their fiduciary duties,wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched by allowing theCompany to make misrepresentations or omissions that exposed theCompany to the Harrison and Parker class actions and damaged theCompany's goodwill.

"Two of the derivative actions were filed in the SeventeenthJudicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida and have beenconsolidated under the caption In re MAKO Surgical CorporationShareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 12-cv-16221. By order datedJuly 3, 2012, the court stayed In re MAKO Surgical CorporationShareholder Derivative Litigation pending a ruling on the motionto dismiss filed in the In re MAKO Surgical Corp. SecuritiesLitigation class action."

Each package has a "Sell by" date of May 13-June 22, 2013, and bears the establishment number "EST. 8746A" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

-- Tasso Pork:

* Manda Tasso * Diversified Tasso * Rouses Tasso

Each package has a "Sell by" date of May 13-July 2, 2013, and bears the establishment number "EST. 8746A" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

-- Ham Shanks:

* Manda Ham Shanks

Each package has a "Sell by" date of May 13-June 9, 2013, and bears the establishment number "EST. 8746A" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

These products may have been sliced at retail delis, and if sowill not bear this packaging information. The products wereshipped for further distribution, for sale at retail, and toretail deli stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma,South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

FSIS was alerted to the problem by the Tennessee Department ofAgriculture, who took an intact sample of cooked roast beef at aretail establishment on April 5, 2013, which later confirmedpositive for Listeria monocytogenes. The recall is now beingexpanded because of additional samples from additional productiondates which returned positive for Listeria monocytogenes. FSISand the company have received no reports of illnesses associatedwith consumption of these products.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify thatrecalling firms notify their customers of the recall and thatsteps are taken to make certain that the product is no longeravailable to consumers. When available, the retail distributionlist(s) will be posted on the FSIS Web site at:http://is.gd/Mxp5ng

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes cancause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosiscan cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea.Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths, as wellas serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with weakenedimmune systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons with HIVinfection or undergoing chemotherapy. Individuals concerned aboutan illness should contact a health care provider.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should contactJosh Yarborough, Director of Quality Assurance and Food Safety, at(225) 344-7636, ext. 59.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSISvirtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov orvia smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat servicesare available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.Eastern Time. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish andcan be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Mondaythrough Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24hours a day.

MAPLE LEAF: May Face Class Action Over Bedbug Infestation---------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reports that attorneys for two people suing aMount Pleasant apartment complex for allegedly failing to dealwith a long-running bedbug infestation want to make it a class-action lawsuit.

Delilah Gum and Baneeck Knquia filed their lawsuit last month onbehalf of more than 50 residents and former residents of MapleLeaf Apartments, the Burlington Hawk Eye reported on April 5. Thelawsuit claims the federally subsidized complex failed toeliminate the infestation despite numerous requests from tenants.

"Plaintiffs have been forced to endure bedbug bites, loss ofsleep, anxiety, aggravation, inconvenience, emotional distress andother health-related problems as an approximate result of the bedbug infestation," according to court documents.

Mr. Lipman said at issue is the lack of proper response from theapartment complex.

"The fact that somebody has bed bugs in an apartment doesn'tautomatically give rise to liability," he said. "The crucialissue is if the apartment complex management was reasonable inwarning the tenants of the problem, if management's inspection ofthe premises was done properly and if its response to the problemwas appropriate."

MARCHESE HOSPITAL: Chemotherapy Patients Contact Lawyers Over Suit------------------------------------------------------------------CTV Windsor reports that a Windsor law firm has been inundatedwith phone calls as a class-action lawsuit was officially launchedon April 4 against the company that is alleged to have improperlymixed chemotherapy drugs supplied to four Ontario hospitals.

The diluted drugs were given to nearly 1,000 Ontario patients,including 290 at Windsor Regional Hospital, over the last year.It also impacted patients in London, Oshawa, Peterborough and NewBrunswick.

Two law firms, including Windsor-based Sutts Strosberg LLP, nameMarchese Health Care in the class-action suit.

"Our phones been ringing off the hook," says Sharon Strosberg,partner at Sutts Strosberg. "We are hearing from so many peoplewho are worried, scared. They don't understand what to do or whatthe affect is."

Ms. Strosberg estimated at least 200 people have joined the class-action suit, but that number is expected to climb much higher.

Now that it has been filed, lawyers will have about 30 days tofile a statement of claim -- a more detailed document, outliningthe allegations.

Windsor hospital officials say they have been working diligentlyto make contact with every patient impacted by this error. Sofar, they've reached two-thirds of the Windsor area patients.

"We've made contact with 70 per cent of patients and families,"says Windsor Regional Hospital CEO David Musyj. "We've called allof them, but some we've left messages, waiting for a call back andwill call back today."

Mr. Musyj says they've also received feedback from many patients.

"About half of the two-thirds have said 'Don't worry about me.I'm comfortable with the information I have and there's no needfor me to see my oncologist right now.'"

Lawyers say they have no intention of suing any of the hospitalsinvolved.

Marchese Hospital Solutions issued a statement on April 3, saying:"We are confident that we fully met all of the contractrequirements including both volume and concentrations for thesesolutions. However, we share responsibility to ensure thatpatients and their families are not given any reason for concernabout their treatment. We take this responsibility veryseriously."

MARCHESE HEALTH: Diluted Cancer Drug Class Actions Prompt Probe---------------------------------------------------------------CanIndia reports that Ontario, Premier Kathleen Wynne and HealthMinister Deb Matthews announced on April 4 that there will be athird party investigation into the diluted cancer drugs that wereadministered to patients being treated at London Health SciencesCentre, Windsor Regional Hospital, Lakeridge Health in Oshawa andPeterborough Regional Health Centre. "It's unacceptable that thisshould have happened; that the doses would not have beenaccurate," Ms. Wynne said. "The minister is pulling together allthe people necessary to get to the bottom of it."Ms. Matthews said Health Canada, the Ontario College ofPharmacists, hospital leaders and Cancer Care Ontario are beingconsulted as "every one of those groups will bring a differentperspective." There has been no announcement on who will carryout the investigation. Watered-down chemotherapy drugs were givento 990 cancer patients -- some for as long as a year. Doctorshave been reassuring patients that any health consequences areunlikely. "We must look specifically at what happened,"Ms. Matthews said. "We owe it to cancer patients to provide thebest possible care. We need patients to have confidence they'regetting the best possible care in the world." Patients were givenlower than intended doses of cyclophosphamide and gemcitabine.The chemotherapy is part of a regime for breast and lung cancer aswell as lymphoma and leukemia. The premixed bags contained toomuch saline solution, which diluted the chemotherapy agent. OnApril 3, three firms Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Siskinds LLP,announced that their hope to launch class-action lawsuits onbehalf of the families of the more than 1,100 patients affected.They plan to sue the company that prepared the IV bags containingthe diluted medications.

MEDICAL VISION: ASIC Asked to Probe Finances Amid Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Vassil Malandris, writing for ABC News, reports the AustralianSecurities and Investments Commission has been asked toinvestigate the finances of the Australian distributor of faultyPIP breast implants.

A class action against Medical Vision Australia was droppedbecause the company did not have product liability insurance. Butliquidator Heard Phillips claims it made several transactions witha related entity, including asset sales, before going intovoluntary administration. It says the total figure is unknown butit could be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Heard Phillips has asked ASIC to investigate the company forpossible breaches of the Corporations Act. If found in breach,those responsible could face heavy fines and up to two years inprison.

Tim White -- twhite@tgb.com.au -- from Adelaide law firm TindallGask Bentley says an investigation would be welcomed by hisclients, who are still fighting for compensation.

"If that is the case from the liquidator's investigations, thenit's possible that the transaction or transactions involved can becancelled and then the creditors may be able to recover money thatthey're out of pocket," he said.

More than 1300 women signed up to the class action before it wasabandoned. In Australia, there are more than 420 officiallyrecognized cases of the French-made implants rupturing.

In 2010 it was discovered that the implants contained industrialgrade and not medical grade silicone, prompting a recall by theTherapeutic Goods Administration. The TGA is not charged withdemanding companies take out insurance, and there are now callsfor that to change. Mr. White says there is still the possibilityof pursuing legal action against other defendants, including theTGA.

"Certainly against the distributor, given the lack of productliability cover, it makes a class action not viable. However,there are other potential defendants, whether that's medicalpractitioners or the TGA."

He says the company is still selling breast implants, albeit adifferent brand, and still has limited public liability cover.

"One of the entities continues to supply silicone breast implants,and to my knowledge, from the insurance product that I've seen, itdoes not cover product liability cover," he said.

That is why, in mid-March, Delany made a declaration in support ofthe NCAA's case (via Andy Staples of Sports Illustrated). In thedeclaration, he essentially stated that the Big Ten would takeit's ball and go play elsewhere, rather than abide by the pay-for-play structure that could come as a result of the O'Bannonlawsuit:

". . . if current NCAA rules prohibiting student-athletes frombeing paid for playing in college sports did not exist, I do notbelieve . . . that The Big Ten would participate in a 50/50revenue-sharing or any other 'pay for play' model with student-athletes. Rather, it has been my longstanding belief that The BigTen's schools would forgo those revenues in those circumstancesand instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activityof their athletic programs."

Mr. Delany went on to identify the Division III model as apossibility for the conference, claiming that the D-III need-basedfinancial model would be more aligned with the Big Ten'sphilosophy regarding student-athletes.

In all likelihood, Mr. Delany is simply blowing smoke -- using hisposition atop one of the major collegiate athletics conferences asposturing on the side of the NCAA in this lawsuit. Even Big 12Conference commissioner Bob Bowlsby deemed his statement "a littlebit overcooked" when he talked about the issue with IanFitzsimmons on the air on ESPN Radio in Dallas.

However, even if the juicy red center has been cooked out ofDelany's statement, much of his declaration had to be said.

Mr. O'Bannon -- who played basketball for the UCLA Bruins in theearly 1990s -- didn't see his professional career pan out afterwinning the national title at UCLA in 1995. Now working for a cardealership in Las Vegas, Mr. O'Bannon has decided come back totake a slice of the ever-growing NCAA pie.

Mr. O'Bannon and the many other former collegiate athletesrepresented in this lawsuit believe that monetary slice is owed tothem, and it's easy to see why. The NCAA, conferences,broadcasting companies, video game companies and athletic apparelcompanies are all reaping the commercial benefits of collegiateathletics, while the actual athletes are compensated with acollege degree.

However, Mr. Delany -- a former basketball player at NorthCarolina -- understands very well what supporters of pay-for-playfail to see. He understands the idea of amateurism, but moreimportantly, he has an idea of what would happen to collegiateathletics if the NCAA was to implement any kind of pay-for-play orrevenue sharing model.

Mr. Delany is far from the only voice in the fight against thepay-for-play uprising. Bowlsby, Pac-12 Conference commissionerLarry Scott and Texas athletic directors DeLoss Dodds andChristine Plonsky all filed declarations along with the Big Tenboss, but none of them brought the same gusto that Delany did.

When Mr. Delany climbed atop his soapbox and made his declaration,he had no choice but to make it count. So he made his statementthat if pushed, the Big Ten would push back.

Was it a bit outlandish and excessive? Perhaps, but it wascertainly necessary from the Big Ten's perspective.

Only 22 NCAA member institutions currently operate in the black,while the vast majority of their peers operate at a deficit. Howcan schools pay athletes with money they don't have?

Athletic departments that have already been forced to cut programswould be saddled with yet another expense, likely leading to evenmore cuts, particularly in non-revenue sports. Currently, morethan 82 percent of all athletic department revenue comes solelyfrom football and basketball programs -- a total that eclipses $4billion across all of Division 1-A (via U.S. Department ofEducation).

At some individual institutions, that percentage is even higher.So, what will happen to less lucrative programs like women'ssoccer and wrestling if schools start paying football players?

It's hard, even for the likes of Mr. Delany, to predict exactlywhat will happen to the NCAA landscape if pay-for-play isimplemented. So instead of waiting, he knocked down the firsthypothetical domino himself.

And while it may just be posturing move, it made people talk. Itmade writers like Andy Staples fire up their laptops and publish,which will make the college sports fans think.

What if the NCAA loses its lawsuit? What if student-athletes haveto be paid by their schools? Would that really prevent boostersfrom offering a little extra cash for good performances?

What if a conference as influential as the Big Ten doesdeemphasize athletics?

Other conferences and institutions could certainly follow suit.

Title IX even further complicates the situation, as Mr. Delanypointed out in his declaration. While Title IX is excellent increating opportunities for female student-athletes, its guidelineswould be increasingly difficult to follow under a pay-for-playmodel that brings favor to football and men's basketball programs.

So whether Mr. Delany's threat is valid or not, some institutionsmay have no choice but to deemphasize athletics under a pay-for-play model.

If nothing else, many baseball, softball, field hockey, rifle,wrestling and other programs will be cut as a result -- meaningless opportunities for student-athletes of both genders -- allbecause guys like Mr. O'Bannon are sour about their "likeness"being used in a video game.

As the commissioner of a conference that will make money eitherway, Mr. Delany could still be bluffing.

But whether he's serious or not, there's no doubt that he's usingthis declaration to help paint a picture of what could happen ifthe NCAA loses this lawsuit.

"We can sit around and label Delany a prickly old man, but thatdoesn't make him wrong," Mr. Sims said.

NELNET INC: To Seek Permission to Appeal in Bais Yaakov Suit------------------------------------------------------------Nelnet, Inc., continues to contest the class action lawsuit BaisYaakov of Spring Valley v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, according tothe Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On January 4, 2011, a complaint against Peterson's Nelnet, LLC("Peterson's"), a subsidiary of the Company, was filed in the U.S.federal District Court for the District of New Jersey (the"District Court"). The complaint alleges that Peterson's sent sixadvertising faxes to the named plaintiff in 2008-2009 that werenot the result of express invitation or permission granted by theplaintiff and did not include certain opt out language. Thecomplaint also alleges that such faxes violated the federalTelephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), purportedlyentitling the plaintiff to $500 per violation, trebled for willfulviolations for each of the six faxes. The complaint furtheralleges that Peterson's had sent putative class members more than10,000 faxes that violated the TCPA, amounting to more than $5million in statutory penalty damages and more than $15 million iftrebled for willful violations. The complaint seeks to establish aclass action. As of the filing date of this report, the DistrictCourt has not established or recognized any class.

On April 14, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ThirdCircuit, which has jurisdiction over the District Court, issued anorder in an unrelated TCPA case which remanded that case to theDistrict Court to determine whether the statutory provisions ofthe TCPA limit whether or to what extent a TCPA claim can be heardas a class action in federal court where applicable state lawwould impose limitations on a class action if the claim werebrought in state court. The resolution of this issue may affectwhether the claim against Peterson's can be pursued as a classaction, and in light of the ruling, Peterson's requested andreceived the District Court's permission to file a renewed motionto dismiss the complaint. Peterson's filed that motion on May 29,2012, and on October 17, 2012, the District Court denied themotion. On November 7, 2012, Peterson's filed a motion forreconsideration of the District Court's order, or in thealternative, to certify the District Court's order forinterlocutory appeal. On February 21, 2013, the District Courtdenied Peterson's motion for reconsideration, but granted themotion to certify its order for interlocutory appeal. Accordingly,Peterson's intends to submit a Petition for Permission to Appealwith the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, and intends to continue tocontest the suit vigorously.

Due to the preliminary stage of this matter and the uncertaintyand risks inherent in class determination and the overalllitigation process, the Company believes that a meaningfulestimate of a reasonably possible loss, if any, or range ofreasonably possible losses, if any, cannot currently be made.

NEW JERSEY: Insurers Join Bid to Dismiss Storm Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------HarrisMartin reports that several insurers have moved to dismiss aclass action lawsuit filed in New Jersey federal court over floodinsurance payments to homeowners in the wake of Hurricane Ireneand Superstorm Sandy. In a joint motion filed March 22 in U.S.District Court for the District of New Jersey, nine insurers arguethat the plaintiff who filed the suit lacks standing to bring theclaims because neither he nor any other plaintiff was ever insuredunder a policy issued by the moving defendants.

Mr. Katz represents 20,000 New Jersey physicians suing Oxford forthe insurer's alleged underpayment of medical claims. The issuebefore the Supreme Court is whether a physician contractcontaining an arbitration clause, but is silent as to classarbitration, can be interpreted by an arbitrator to permitimposition of class arbitration over the objections of one party.The case could have very big implications for employers and theiremployees' allegations of discrimination in the workplace.

Indeed, according to the April 5 issue of New Jersey Law Journal,while "[s]ame-sex marriage had the spotlight at the U.S. SupremeCourt, [the Oxford] case . . . could have an even broader impact."A decision is expected from the Supreme Court by the end of June.

Mr. Katz has been selected annually by his peers as one of "TheBest Lawyers in America" since 2012 and a "New Jersey SuperLawyer" since 2007. He is a senior partner at Mazie Slater Katz &Freeman, LLC, a leading New Jersey class action and trial lawfirm. Mr. Katz has resided in Berkeley Heights since 1991. Hisdaughter, Alexa, a scholar-athlete and recipient of severalvarsity letters, graduated Governor Livingston High School in2011.

She is a sophomore at the prestigious Washington University inSt. Louis. Mr. Katz's son, Josh, is a freshman at GovernorLivingston, where he is the centerfielder on the freshman baseballteam.

RBC DOMINION: Local Charities to Get Share of Settlement--------------------------------------------------------Dave Waddell, writing for The Windsor Star, reports that fivelocal charities will share about $250,000 as the result of therecent settlement of a class-action lawsuit over allegedlyundisclosed fees two financial institutions charged clients oncurrency exchange trades.

The suit was filed by the Windsor law firm Sutts, Strosberg andconcerned trades made by RBC Dominion Securities Inc. and RBCAction Direct Inc. between Dec. 30, 1997, and Nov. 1, 2003.

In line for the unexpected payout are the VON Windsor-Essex,Lawyers Feed the Hungry Windsor, the Essex Region ConservationAuthority, the University of Windsor and Transition to Betterness.

The charities should get the cash by the end of September,according to the Feb. 13 agreement. Under terms of thesettlement, money that is unclaimed, or claims that would be lessthan $25, will be donated to 10 charities listed in the agreement.

"They (local charities) should all be very happy," said JayStrosberg, who has been involved with a series of suits in theclass action against several financial institutions for the pastdecade.

"It won't be split evenly, but each of them will be getting tensof thousands. I'm really proud that we can distribute this moneyto Windsor charities."

Any class action member who is still with RBC will have theirsettlement funds directly deposited into their accounts.

Mr. Strosberg said it was fitting the area benefited. One of thesuit's original two plaintiffs is a Windsor resident and theaction was filed locally. He added because the suit affected sucha wide cross-section of citizens, an effort was made to pickcharities which also ranged across all segments of society.

"Hats off to Jay Strosberg and his firm for thinking of us," saidERCA vice-chairman Percy Hatfield, when informed of the surprisewindfall. "This is just fantastic news."

Mr. Hatfield said the timing for getting an unexpected infusion ofmoney couldn't be better. ERCA has a few projects, such asdeteriorating wooden walkways in conservation areas, which coulduse some attention.

"The wait was certainly worth it if for ERCA," Mr. Hatfield said."It'll have a huge impact for us. We've been making cuts,scraping by the last few years."

The overall settlement, in which Royal doesn't admit liability,was for about $7.2 million with an expected $1.2 million beingshared by 10 charities. Just over $5.1-million will be left afterexpenses to be redistributed to the class-action suit members.

ROTHMAN REALTY: Settles Class Action Over Tax Lien Rig Auctions---------------------------------------------------------------Joshua Alston, writing for Law360, reports that the owner of NewJersey real estate company Rothman Realty Corp. who pled guilty toconspiring to rig auctions of municipal tax liens has agreed topay $200,000 to settle a related class action, according to amotion filed on April 4 in New Jersey federal court.

Robert E. Rothman pled guilty to violations of the Sherman Act inMarch 2012, admitting he'd participated in a scheme to manipulateauctions by colluding on bids to drive up the interest rates onmunicipal tax liens.

ROYAL BANK: Shareholders File Class Action Against Ex-Directors---------------------------------------------------------------Domain-B reports that shareholders of Royal Bank of Scotland havelaunched a class action suit against the bank and its formerdirectors including ex-chief executive Fred Goodwin, seekingdamages to the tune of GBP4 billion.

Thousands of shareholders belonging to the RBoS ShareholdersAction Group also has on board 100 institutional investors,including HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Credit Agricole and CollinsStewart, as also a number of local authority pension funds,churches and charities, all of whom lost money in the bank's 2008rights issue.

According to the action group, the former directors "sought tomislead shareholders by misrepresenting the underlying strength ofthe bank and omitting critical information" from the rights issueprospectus.

The group that represents over 12,000 private shareholders, manyof whom are pensioners, has launched proceedings against Goodwin,ex-chairman Tom McKillop, the former head of investment bankingJohnny Cameron, ex-finance director Guy Whittaker, and the bankitself.

This comes as the second claim lodged against the lender over thepast few days. It emerged that the bank was being sued formisleading investors, in a joint claim brought by Dutch bank INGand several pension schemes.

The action group argued that the alleged failings meant that underthe terms of the Financial Services and Markets Act, RBS wasliable for losses that investors had sustained with theirparticipation in the rights issue. It added, it was estimatedthat the final claim might be as much as GBP4 billion.

RBS launched the GBP12 billion rights issue to shore up itsbalance sheet following its disastrous acquisition of the Dutchbank ABN Amro. The RBS share price, however, collapsed by 95 percent within months, and it had to be bailed out by taxpayers inOctober 2008.

According to a spokesman for the group, this was a giant stepforward for the many thousands of ordinary people who lost moneyas the result of inexcusable actions taken by banks and theirdirectors in the financial crisis.

Now, for the first time, some of these directors would have toanswer for their actions in a British court, he added.

In the 12th legal action against Sentinel in recent months,attorney John Long is seeking class-action status for Nathan R.Mantooth and all others who have been or might be arrested becauseSentinel staffers say they have violated terms of theirmisdemeanor probation sentences. Mr. Long is also seeking apreliminary injunction to stop Sentinel from seeking the arrest ofanyone sentenced in Richmond County State Court without anindependent legal review of each warrant. Mr. Long contends Mr.Mantooth and two other recent clients who say they were falselyjailed represent the tip of an iceberg because an estimated 10,000Sentinel warrants have not yet been served.

Mr. Mantooth pleaded guilty Jan. 23 in State Court to a trafficoffense, improper lane change. According to court documents, hepaid his $420 fine and completed a court-ordered defensive drivingclass by the end of the month. According to the lawsuit, Mr.Mantooth took time off work Jan. 31 and Feb. 15 to go to theSentinel office and show proof that he completed the drivingcourse and to attend to anything a probation officer might want ofhim. On both occasions, he was told his case had not been enteredinto the computer system yet.

On Feb. 26, Sentinel employee Kayla White swore under oath thatMr. Mantooth had violated his probation by not completing hisdriving class, not reporting to the probation officer and notpaying Sentinel $103. Though Sentinel has access to court recordswith Mr. Mantooth's phone number and address, he contends he wasnever notified of any violation of his probation.

On March 18, when Mr. Mantooth was pulled over in Columbia Countyfor driving without a seat belt, the officer had to arrest him onthe Sentinel warrant. He was jailed for a day, had to pay $103 toSentinel to get out of jail and was disgraced by the publicationof his picture on jail media sites, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of private companiesbeing empowered to have people jailed to collect debts thecompanies claim are owed and the constitutionality of a judicialfunction being turned over to for-profit businesses. The lawsuitestimates that more than 1,000 people could be potential membersof the proposed class-action petition.

Cases against Sentinel are assigned to Judge Daniel J. Craig, whoscheduled a hearing on April 4 in a similar lawsuit filed onbehalf of a man who claims he was falsely arrested and jailed on aSentinel warrant.

SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Adderall Maker Sued Over Inflated Prices---------------------------------------------------------------The Huffington Post reports that the company that makes Adderallwas artificially inflating the price of the drug for years bytrying to keep generic versions off the market, a new lawsuitclaims.

A class-action suit filed on behalf of California Adderall allegesShire Pharmaceuticals, the maker of AXR, or Adderall, used acombination of anti-competitive practices to delay theintroduction of a generic version of the drug. The result,according to the suit: consumers were forced to buy the "far moreexpensive" name-brand Adderall, a drug of choice for patientssuffering from attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Shire stands accused of filing "sham" patent litigation to delayother companies from introducing their own versions of Adderalluntil 2006. Shire then reached settlements with some of thosecompanies, which allowed the firms to introduce an "authorizedgeneric" version of the drug after three more years, in 2009, inexchange for a royalty payment. But the lawsuit claims Shirereneged on the deals by not providing the companies with enough ofthe product to meet demand, forcing consumers to continue to buyAdderall at inflated prices.

Gwen Fisher, a Shire spokeswoman, told The Huffington Post thatthe lawsuit's allegations are "absolutely not true." She notedthat the deals with other drugmakers allowed for a generic versionof Adderall to reach the market earlier than had those companieswaited for FDA approval. The first unauthorized generic versionof Adderall was approved by the FDA in 2012.

Ms. Fisher added the company plans to "defend itself vigorously"in the case. "Shire believes that the lawsuits have littlemerit," she wrote in emailed statement, pointing to an antitrustsuit against the company in New York federal court that was thrownout in March.

Once the generic version of Adderall hit the market last year,Shire's bottom line also took a hit. According to Bloomberg, thecompany's sales of Adderall dropped 35% to $82 million in thefourth quarter of 2012 -- a period not covered by the class-actionsuit.

Though they may seem unfair, many the tactics Shire allegedly usedto decrease competition aren't illegal, and they're rather commonin the pharmaceutical industry. So-called "pay for delay" dealsbetween drugmakers cost consumers and taxpayers $3.5 billion ayear, according to the Federal Trade Commission. The Senate ismulling legislation that would ban the practice, which thepharmaceutical industry prefers to call "reverse settlements," andthe Supreme Court is also weighing a case over one such deal.

Opponents of the deals argue that they violate antitrust lawsbecause drugmakers can come up with a settlement that benefitsthem but hurts consumers by keeping cheaper versions of drugs offthe market.

SHOPPERS DRUG: Cassels Brock Discusses Ontario Court Ruling-----------------------------------------------------------According to Colin Pendrith, Esq. at Cassels Brock Lawyers, in arecent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Spina v.Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. 2012 ONSC 5563, the Honourable Mr. JusticePerell heard a motion for certification of a franchise classaction as well as a cross-motion by the defendant under Rule 21 tostrike various elements of the plaintiffs' amended statement ofclaim. Although the decision deals with a multitude of legalissues concerning the striking of pleadings and certification, itprovides helpful guidance to franchisors in respect of typicalclaims that are brought by franchisees in rebates-related claims.Specifically, Justice Perell held that Ontario courts will take aserious look at boilerplate claims concerning unjust enrichment,breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the duty of good faith tosee if such claims pass muster in light of what the parties'franchise agreement actually reads regarding the parties' rightsconcerning rebates.

The plaintiff franchisees, who were drug store pharmacists,brought a claim that asserted breach of contract claims againstthe franchisor, Shoppers Drug Mart Inc., arguing that Shoppers hadbreached the terms of the "Associate Agreements" with theirfranchisees in various ways. In addition, the plaintiffs allegedthat Shoppers breached the common law duty of good faith andstatutory duties of fair dealing under section 3 of the ArthurWishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000. The plaintiffs madefurther claims for breach of fiduciary duties and unjustenrichment. Finally, the plaintiffs alleged that Shoppers hadinterfered with their right to associate, as prescribed bysection 4 of the AWA.

These causes of action made by the franchisees were grounded invarious factual allegations, which included: failure by Shoppersto remit professional allowances; failure by Shoppers to share theadvantages of bulk purchasing with associates; Shoppers'collection of advertising contribution fees in excess of a 2% capprescribed by the Associate Agreements; making unauthorizedchanges to the "Optimum Program"; imposing a budgeting system thatwas biased against associates; imposing inventory practices thatwere not reasonable; and failing to provide associates withsufficient disclosure.

Although some of the plaintiffs' claims were permitted to proceed,Justice Perell struck several of them, and the court's reasoningregarding the decision to strike these claims demonstrates thatmany causes of action must be examined in light of the parties'contractual obligations in determining whether or not they canproceed.

(a) The unjust enrichment claims

Justice Perell determined that it was plain and obvious that theplaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim relating to volume rebateswould not succeed. Although the plaintiffs could establish aneconomic loss and corresponding enrichment to Shoppers, thefranchise agreement provided a juristic reason for the enrichment.Justice Perell's decision on this point illustrates that whenfranchisors are faced with an unjust enrichment claim, thegoverning agreement may provide a full stop to the cause ofaction. This highlights the need to conduct a thoroughcontractual review at the pleadings stage of litigation.

In contrast, Justice Perell held that Shoppers' failure to remitprofessional allowances might support an unjust enrichment claimbecause the associate agreement did not provide such juristicreason. However, he further held that this claim (as well as theplaintiffs' claims for cost recovery fees and inventory practices)was "redundant" or "superfluous" of the claim for breach ofcontract.

(b) The breach of fiduciary duty claims

Justice Perell declined to decide the issue of whether Shopperswas in a fiduciary relationship with its franchisees, butintimated that the Associate Agreement might preclude such afinding. More particularly, Justice Perell referred to the clausein the Associate Agreement which states: "This Agreement shall notbe construed so as to constitute the Associate and/or Pharmacistas a partner, employee, joint venture, agent or representative ofthe Company for any purpose whatsoever, or to create any suchrelationship or any trust or fiduciary relationship". Whetherdispositive or not, as a practice point for franchisors, includingsuch a clause in franchise agreements will often be prudent.

Rather than focussing on the existence of a fiduciaryrelationship, Justice Perell considered whether Shoppers hadbreached a fiduciary duty. Quoting Justice Keenan in Varcoe v.Sterling (1992), 7 O.R. (3d) 204, Justice Perell noted that "notevery wrong done by a fiduciary is a breach of that duty. It mustbe a wrong which is a betrayal of that trust component of therelationship". Ultimately, Justice Perell determined that it wasnot an "act of disloyalty, breach of confidence ormisappropriation of the Associates' property for Shoppers to keepthe rebates for itself". Therefore, even if a fiduciaryrelationship existed, there was no breach of a fiduciary duty.

Justice Perell determined that the plaintiffs could stillpotentially rely on the common law duty of good faith andShoppers' contractual duties. Accordingly the claim for breach offiduciary duty was struck.

(c) The breach of the duty of good faith claims

Justice Perell struck out the plaintiffs' claim for breach of theduty of good faith as it related to volume rebates. JusticePerell noted that "it is a general principle that good faith isnot intended to replace that contract with another or to amend thecontract by altering the express terms of the franchise contract".This comment will be welcomed by franchisors facing attempts byfranchisees to dress-up or elevate contractual obligations in theguise of good faith.

Justice Perell further explained that the plaintiffs' claimsconcerning volume rebates mirrored a claim for beach of an expressterm of the contract, but as a matter of interpretation, theAssociates Agreement authorized Shoppers' conduct. Accordingly,Justice Perell determined that the claim had to fail.

(d) The interference with association claims

Lastly, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief preventingShoppers from interfering with an independent franchiseassociation. Justice Perell noted that the plaintiffs "fear buthave not actually suffered interference with their right toassociate". In this respect, Justice Perell clarified thatfranchisees are not entitled to injunctive relief wheninterference is merely anticipated, but has not actually occurred.

Justice Perell determined that it was plain and obvious that theclaim was not a genuine claim, but was an attempt by theplaintiffs to add color to the amended statement of claim.However, Justice Perell granted the plaintiffs leave to amendtheir claim in the event that interference should later occur.

Conclusion

Justice Perell's decision in Spina illustrates the risk involvedin pleading a multitude of causes of action, particularly wherethose claims overlap with breach of contract claims or are beingattempted despite clear contractual language that undermines them.It is reassuring to franchisors that Ontario courts will carefullyscrutinize franchise claims on motions to strike, as such motionscan significantly pare down the claims a franchisor is forced todefend and can simplify matters before the court. This allows theparties to franchise litigation to better focus on the real issuesin the lawsuit and to understand the case to be met.

Samuel Muriithi, an employee of the airport shuttle serviceShuttle Express Inc., claimed that the company misclassified himand other drivers as independent contractors under the FLSA, thusdepriving them of minimum wage and overtime pay. Mr. Muriithiinitially prevailed in the case when a district judge ruled inMarch 2011 that Shuttle Express's arbitration agreement wasunenforceable because it contained a class action waiver. At thetime of his ruling -- which he issued before the Supreme Court'sdecision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion -- Judge AlexanderWilliams also found that the agreement would have imposed"prohibitive costs" on employees because it required that eachparty to the arbitration pay half the cost of the arbitrator.

The next month, however, the Supreme Court issued its ruling inConcepcion, in which it found that the Federal Arbitration Actpreempted a California state law invalidating class action waiversin arbitration agreements.

On appeal, the 4th Circuit called the district court's ruling"directly at odds" with the Supreme Court's decision, despiteMr. Muriithi's argument that Concepcion did not apply to FLSAcollective claims.

Writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Barbara MilanoKeenan said that Concepcion applied more broadly than Mr. Muriithihad argued. "Contrary to Muriithi's contention, the SupremeCourt's holding was not merely an assertion of federal preemption,but also plainly prohibited application of the general contractdefense of unconscionability to invalidate an otherwise validarbitration agreement under these circumstances," Judge Keenanwrote.

Sandra Lackas told a class action trial she pleaded with herhusband Steve Lackas to join her and leave their property of12 years at Upper Plenty as smoke billowed in the distance.

"He said, 'I'll stay and see if I can fight the fire, thenleave,'" she told the Victorian Supreme Court on April 5.

"I didn't want him to stay but he insisted."

The couple had just received a visit from two men from the CFAwarning the fire would reach them in 20 minutes and they had 10minutes to leave. She said the men showed no indication of howferocious the fire was.

"I didn't feel a great urgency," she said.

Mrs. Lackas said she had kept tabs on the situation that daythrough television news and CFA website updates. She believed herfamily would be okay because the CFA website said the fire wassmall and just a handful of trucks were battling it. She did notsee an update on the website that stated 101 trucks were involved.

After leaving her husband behind, she called him and he told herfire was all around and their hay shed was ablaze. She triedfrequently to call him back but couldn't reach him and learntlater that afternoon he had died.

Mrs. Lackas said she and her husband were always conscious of firedanger and a decision to leave depended on the day. She said shehad contacted the Department of Sustainability and Environmentannually to do fuel reduction burns in the area but had been toldthe weather was inappropriate or there wasn't funding available.

Mrs. Lackas is one of 10,000 people in a class action claimingdamages against power company SPI Electricity for failing tomaintain power lines, which sparked the February 2009 blaze. Theyare also suing the police, the CFA and the state's environmentdepartment for failing to give adequate warnings about the KilmoreEast fire that killed 119 people.

The lawsuit comes as a group that includes former Gov. BrianSchweitzer seeks to oust the leadership of Stillwater Mining Co.for alleged mismanagement.

Billings Attorney Thomas Towe, who represents the Pennsylvaniawoman named as a plaintiff in the case, said Friday that stockawards to Stillwater Chairman and CEO Frank McAllister violated ashareholder-approved incentive plan. That plan limited the numberof shares McAllister could receive in a given year to 250,000,according to the suit. In 2010 he received, 337,447 shares, andin 2012 he received 267,512 shares.

The suit, filed on April 4 in U.S. District Court in Billings,calls for the shares to be rescinded. It also claims Stillwaterand its board violated federal securities laws by not disclosingthe stock awards. The alleged excess shares were worth almost$1.3 million at Stillwater's most recent stock price.

Stillwater spokesman Dan Gagnier said on April 5 the company wasaware of the lawsuit and was reviewing it, but had no furthercomment.

Stillwater is the only U.S. producer of platinum and palladium,precious metals used primarily used to make catalytic convertersthat reduce vehicle pollution. The company employs more than1,664 people and operates two mines in the Beartooth Mountains ofsouth-central Montana. It also runs a precious metals recyclingplant in Columbus.

In recent years, Stillwater sought to expand internationally.Under McAllister's leadership, it bought a proposed gold andpalladium mine in Canada and a vast reserve of copper in a remotearea of the Andes in Argentina.

The foreign ventures cost hundreds of millions of dollars.Critics say they distracted from the company's core operations inMontana and prompted potential investors to shy away.

Plaintiff's attorney Towe said he knows of no connection betweenhis client, Sylvia Jurgelewicz, and Schweitzer's group, which isled by a New York hedge fund, the Clinton Group.

But the class action suit extensively cites proxy material put outby the Clinton Group as part its corporate takeover. The group istrying to convince shareholders to replace Stillwater's eight-member board with a slate of nominees that includes Schweitzer,former Stillwater CEO Charles Engles and Clinton Group managingdirector Greg Taxin.

The issue will be decided by a vote of shareholders duringStillwater's annual meeting, scheduled for May 2 in Montana.

The Court concluded that the proposed Settlement meets thecriteria for preliminary settlement approval. The Court alsoapproved the distribution of notice of the settlement to theClass.

Gilardi & Company, LLC was appointed Settlement Administrator.

Any Class Member may opt out of participating in the Settlement bye-mailing or submitting a letter to the Settlement Administratorstating that he or she wishes to be excluded from the Settlement.A completed opt-out request will be deemed timely submitted to theSettlement Administrator if it is mailed to the SettlementAdministrator and postmarked by not later than 70 days after entryof the Preliminary Order.

Objections to the Settlement must also be in writing and must besubmitted within 70 days after entry of the Preliminary Order.

The Court will convene a hearing on July 11, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.,to determine whether to grant final approval of the Settlement.

A copy of the District Court's April 5, 2013 Order is available athttp://is.gd/vMYVEVfrom Leagle.com.

UNITED HEALTH: NYSPA Joins Mental Health Coverage Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Psychiatric News reports The New York State PsychiatricAssociation has joined a class-action lawsuit against UnitedHealthGroup and subsidiaries, including United Behavioral Health, foralleged violations of the federal parity law and the AffordableCare Act. NYSPA is representing members who say they haveexperienced problems associated with patient access to mentalhealth treatment and with reimbursement for care.

The class action, filed last month in the U.S. District Court,Southern District of New York, was brought on behalf of threebeneficiaries. NYSPA joined the suit on behalf of its members andtheir patients.

Seth Stein, J.D., executive director of NYSPA, told PsychiatricNews that the district branch has fielded numerous complaints fromits members about systematic denial of mental health and substanceabuse treatment by United.

"Over the past year we have tried to work with United to resolvethese complaints but have been unsuccessful," Mr. Stein said."Enforcement of existing state and federal parity statutes isnecessary to ensure that individuals with mental illness haveaccess to appropriate care and treatment." He was echoed by NYSPAPresident Glenn Martin, M.D. "Our state and national associationshave fought for years for parity legislation, and we were mostlysuccessful," Mr. Martin told Psychiatric News. "That was only thefirst step, and now we find that we have to fight for fullimplementation of the laws and regulations. This lawsuit allowsus to go on the offensive in this struggle, and we are confidentwe will prevail to the benefit of our patients and colleagues."

A 100-plus-page formal complaint details the violations alleged byNYSPA and individual beneficiaries. These include "numerousmember complaints" about United's restrictions on psychotherapy."NYSPA members have reported United fully curtailing psychotherapyfor patients requiring long-term treatment, allowing no more thanweekly psychotherapy for patients who have attempted suicide andbeen hospitalized (in one case a patient attempted suicide fivetimes and was hospitalized 10 times), and refusing to cover morethan one weekly session of psychotherapy for actively suicidalpatients," according to the complaint.

The document states that NYSPA members have also complained aboutUnited beneficiaries reporting "extreme difficulty obtaininginitial and continuing authorizations for intermediate levels ofcare, such as intensive outpatient treatment and partialhospitalization for mental health and substance abuse disorders."

Additionally, NYSPA alleges a "pattern of denying coverage forout-of-network mental health services due to purported failures byproviders to respond to requests for back-up clinical informationwhen in fact no such requests have been made."

"This is not an isolated incident," according to the complaint."In each of the cases, UBH or OptumHealth asserts either inwriting or over the telephone that it has repeatedly contactedeither the beneficiary or the provider to obtain additionalinformation regarding out-of-network claims, yet none of theparties report receiving any such requests for information. As aresult of the alleged failure to respond to requests forinformation, the patient's out-of-network claims are then denied."

Additionally, the suit cites numerous complaints alleged by threeindividual beneficiaries. These include a detailed history ofproblems associated with obtaining treatment -- or reimbursementfor treatment -- of a child with ADHD, bipolar disorder, delusionsand hallucinations, and a history of suicidal ideation andhomicidal threats.

"United has devised multilayered strategies in which it violatesparity with respect to medical necessity and level-of-careguidelines for mental health and substance abuse and deprivepatients and providers meaningful due process required by theAffordable Care Act," he said.

Mr. Bendat is counsel for the plaintiffs along with the New Yorklaw firm Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dalhstrom and Gross. At presstime, a spokesperson for United told Psychiatric News that thecompany was reviewing the complaint and had no comment at thetime.

Colleen Coyle, J.D., general counsel for APA, said that thelawsuit is the beginning of a public battle to enforce paritylaws. "Unfortunately, what the plaintiffs complain about --insurer manipulation of nonquantitative treatment limitations, CPTcode changes, provider reimbursement rates, and documentationrequirements in order to deprive mental health patients of thebenefits for which they have paid -- is not unique to United or toNew York," she told Psychiatric News. APA has been working withpsychiatric patients, attorneys and members on these issues and onthis case and others that have been filed and will be filed in thenear future in an effort to compel carriers to stop what webelieve are flagrant violations of the law and abuse of mentalhealth patients and psychiatrists."

UNITED STATES: FAA to Delay Air Traffic Control Tower Closures--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal AviationAdministration on April 5 disclosed it will delay the closures ofall 149 federal contract air traffic control towers until June 15.Last month, the FAA announced it would eliminate funding for thesetowers as part of the agency's required $637 million budget cutsunder sequestration.

This additional time will allow the agency to attempt to resolvemultiple legal challenges to the closure decisions. As part ofthe tower closure implementation process, the agency continues toconsult with airports and operators and review appropriate riskmitigations. Extending the transition deadline will give the FAAand airports more time to execute the changes to the NationalAirspace System.

"This has been a complex process and we need to get this right,"said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "Safety is our toppriority. We will use this additional time to make surecommunities and pilots understand the changes at their localairports."

As of April 5, approximately 50 airport authorities and otherstakeholders have indicated they may join the FAA's non-FederalContract Tower program and fund the tower operations themselves.This additional time will allow the FAA to help facilitate thattransition.

"We will continue our outreach to the user community to answer anyquestions and address their concerns about these tower closures,"said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.

On March 22, the FAA announced that it would stop federal fundingfor 149 contract towers across the country. A phased, four-weekclosure process was scheduled to begin this Sunday, April 7. Thatphased closure process will no longer occur. Instead, the FAAwill stop funding all 149 towers on June 15 and will close thefacilities unless the airports decide to continue operations as anonfederal contract tower.

Class Action

KION/KCBA previously reported that the Salinas Municipal Airportmay join a class-action lawsuit against the Federal AviationAdministration to keep its control tower open.

The airport said the tower allows aerial applicators to spray morethan 200,000 crops in the county to prevent infestations duringthe most critical times.

"The airports have exercised every available option to continuethe air traffic control operations out of the airport and toprevent the closure," said Brett Godown, manager for the SalinasMunicipal Airport. "The city is investigating whether we have thefinancial means to participate in the class-action lawsuit and toalso evaluate what the final outcome would be like if the classaction was successful."

He said the tower plays a vital role, helping coordinate airtraffic coming in and out, in addition to allowing aerialapplicators protect hundreds of thousands of crops. The money tofile would come out of the airport's operating budget.

UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Albany County Rail Trail---------------------------------------------------------------Charles Wiff, writing for Spotlightnews.com, reports that a groupof property owners neighboring the Albany County Rail Trail aresuing the federal government over the recreational corridor.

A lawsuit filed by several homeowners in 2009 was recentlyupgraded to a class action lawsuit. Some 300 neighbors of themore than 9-mile Rail Trail corridor were mailed notices offeringthem the opportunity to join the lawsuit, and about 100 of themare signed up as of this report.

The original complaint bore the name of 12 individuals and onecompany. About one month later, an amended complaint was filedwith dozens of additional plaintiffs. After months ofproceedings, Judge Lawrence Block of the United States Court ofFederal Claims granted the case class action status in early Marchof this year, clearing the way for other potential plaintiffs tobe notified. The court's schedule calls for a final class memberlist to be submitted later this year, with an August deadline forpotential plaintiffs to sign up.

The law firm of Baker Sterchi Cowden and Rice in St. Louis, Mo.has also established a toll-free hotline. Class members must haveowned eligible property prior to July 8, 2003.

The lawsuit hinges on the federal Trails Act, part of which dealswith the repurposing of unused railway beds into recreationalresources. The act allows for the federal government to granteasements and rights-of-way in some cases.

Attorney Steve Wald, who specializes in such matters and isrepresenting the class, said the lawsuit does not threaten thetrail itself, but rather argues landowners' Fifth Amendment rightswere bypassed when the county acquired the rail corridor.

"By analogy, think of any other time when a local governmententity takes land and turns it into your typical public park. . . . They can do it, they just have to compensate thelandowners," he said.

The railroad company never owned the corridor, he continued, butrather had an easement established over private land. AlbanyCounty acquired the Rail Trail easement in 2009 from the CanadianPacific Railway using $700,000 in grant money. The railroadcompany moved to abandon the 9-mile section of rail in 2003 andthe county at that time launched the process to acquire thecorridor through "railbanking," the term established in the 1983Trails Act for converting disused railways.

Mr. Wald argued that law robs landowners of their property rights.

"If the government had allowed state law to run its course, thenthe railroad line would have been abandoned and the landownerswould have been entitled to possession and control," he said.

The lawsuit is being leveled against the federal government andlocal entities are not involved. In fact, local officials wereunaware of the lawsuit.

Bethlehem Supervisor John Clarkson said he was not familiar withthe matter, but reaffirmed the town's commitment to work with thecounty and independent groups to see the entire length of thetrail opened. The Mohawk Hudson Land Conservancy, a private groupthat has made efforts to open up public access to the trail, wassimilarly unaware of the lawsuit. Officials in the Albany CountyExecutive's Office declined comment, pointing out the county isnot a party in the action.

A call to the U.S. Department of Justice, whose lawyers arehandling the defense, was not returned.

Mr. Wald declined to discuss exactly what kind of compensationhe's hoping to secure, but said his firm has reached a "tentativeagreement" with the federal government to work towards asettlement. A joint appraisal process will get underway laterthis year, he said, and that will determine what kind of damagesmight be paid out.

The federal government would pay any damages awarded.

Mr. Wald said his firm keeps track of rail-to-trail projects andexamines them to see if a potential case can be made. The firmhas handled similar cases all over the country.

Much of the Rail Trail remains closed to public use. A 1.8-milesection was opened to the public in Bethlehem in 2011 thanks to apublic-private partnership with the Mohawk Hudson Land Conservancyand its Friends of the Rail Trail arm. In the summer of 2012, a2.4-mile section in New Scotland and Voorheesville.

Opening the entire trail is an expensive proposition becausebridges across several spans need repair or replacement. Doingall the work would require about $8 million, far more than whatthe county has secured in grant money. County officials aredetermined to pursue the trail without cost to the taxpayer.

Mr. Wald emphasized no matter what the outcome of the lawsuit, thetrail itself will not be affected.

"We couldn't stop it even if we wanted to. And we don't," he said.

UNITED STATES: South Sioux City Joins Suit v. Corps of Engineers----------------------------------------------------------------Bret Hayworth, writing for Sioux City Journal, reports that SouthSioux City plans to join a class-action lawsuit against thefederal government for 2011 Missouri River flooding.

City Administrator Lance Hedquist said officials hold the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers responsible for not doing enough.

"While we would have expected a flood to happen, there is aquestion about the extensiveness of it and the length of it, andcouldn't that have been shortened up by taking different actionsearlier," he said.

The St. Joseph, Mo., firm Murphy, Taylor, Siemens & Elliott isorganizing the lawsuit on behalf of landowners and municipalitiesfrom South Dakota to Missouri.

Nancy Potter, an attorney in the firm, has said the lawsuit willseek reimbursement for damage caused by flooding, but would notdiscuss specific plaintiffs.

The Sioux City Council on April 1 voted against joining the case.

Monique Farmer, a corps spokeswoman, on April 4 said she would notdiscuss pending litigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court in December ruled that the federalgovernment can be liable for damages from government-owned dams.The federal government previously was exempt in certain cases.

The Missouri River flood caused billions of dollars in damage inthe summer and fall of 2011 to buildings, roads and farm fields.The Army Corps of Engineers attributed the flooding to heavyrainfall in Montana and North Dakota and record snowpack in theRocky Mountains, which overwhelmed reservoirs.

Critics said the agency should have left more room in reservoirswhen it found out about the higher water levels.

In December 2011, a four-member independent panel of hydrology andwater management experts released a 99-page report concluding thatthe record rainfall and runoff left the corps with few choices andit did all it could to handle all that water.

Mr. Hedquist estimated the flood caused $7.3 million in damage toSouth Sioux City. Some parts of Scenic Park on the Missouri Riverwaterfront were under 4 feet of water. Residents along thewaterway were displaced.

Almost $4 million was spent trying to hold back waters.

Mr. Hedquist said the Corps of Engineers should have taken othersteps. He said he does not expect a speedy litigation process.

"This will take many years," Mr. Hedquist said.

WAL-MART DE MEXICO: Gainey McKenna & Egleston Files Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------Gainey McKenna & Egleston on April 5 disclosed that it filed aclass action in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York on behalf of purchasers of the AmericanDepositary Shares of Wal-Mart de Mexico SAB de CV between February21, 2012 through April 22, 2012, inclusive. The case is broughtagainst Wal-Mart de Mexico and Ernesto Vega, the Chairman of theBoard of Directors, Chairman of the Audit and Corporate PracticesCommittee of Wal-Mart de Mexico, seeking to pursue remedies underthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than June 4, 2013. If you wish to discuss this action orhave any questions concerning this notice or your rights orinterests, please contact Plaintiff's counsel, Thomas J. McKenna,Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mailat tjmckenna@gme-law.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve aslead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose todo nothing and remain an absent class member.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants Wal-Mart de Mexico andErnesto Vega violated the Exchange Act by issuing during the ClassPeriod materially false and misleading statements regardingWal-Mart de Mexico's business practices with respect to unlawfulor unethical bribery conduct. Specifically, the Complaint allegesthat Wal-Mart de Mexico failed to disclose that it had beeninvolved in a bribery scheme, and as a result of the false andmisleading statements disseminated by Defendants, the Wal-Mart deMexico ADRs traded at artificially inflated prices during theClass Period.

On April 22, 2012, The New York Times published an articleconcerning bribes made by Walmart de Mexico beginning as early as2005. According to the article Walmart de Mexico spent more than$24 million in bribes. The article further alleged that Walmartde Mexico executives knew about the payments and actively tooksteps to conceal them.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers ofWal-Mart de Mexico ADRs during the Class Period. The Plaintiff isrepresented by Gainey McKenna & Egleston --http://www.gme-law.com-- whose attorneys have decades of experience in prosecuting securities class actions and investorclass actions throughout the United States.

PRODUCT NAME LOTS ------------ ---- Chappaqua Crunch GF simply All Best By Date after Granola with Flax & Fruit, 10/01/13 and up to 11/10/13 12 oz pouch 6/case

UPC: 786516-76002 6

The product was distributed to distributors in MA, CT, NJ, PA, NC,SC, FL, MI and TX; they work beyond these states. The Best ByDate Code is located on a white label on the back of the pouch.

No injuries have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the labelfailed to reveal the presence of almonds.

The company has taken action to correct the label.

Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to return themunopened it to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 800-488-460(8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time).

WPX ENERGY: To Litigate Second Reserved Claim This Year-------------------------------------------------------WPX Energy, Inc., expects to litigate this year the secondreserved claim stemming from a class action lawsuit originallyfiled in 2006, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In September 2006, royalty interest owners inGarfield County, Colorado, filed a class action suit in DistrictCourt, Garfield County, Colorado, alleging we improperlycalculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account forproceeds received from the sale of natural gas and extractedproducts, improperly charged certain expenses and failed to refundamounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations.Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of royalty interest owners,recover underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected paymentsrelated to calculation errors. We entered into a final partialsettlement agreement. The partial settlement agreement defined theclass for certification, resolved claims relating to pastcalculation of royalty and overriding royalty payments,established certain rules to govern future royalty and overridingroyalty payments, resolved claims related to past withholding forad valorem tax payments, established a procedure for refunds ofany such excess withholding in the future, and reserved two claimsfor court resolution. We have prevailed at the trial court and alllevels of appeal on the first reserved claim regarding whether weare allowed to deduct mainline pipeline transportation costspursuant to certain lease agreements. The remaining claim iswhether we are required to have proportionately increased thevalue of natural gas by transporting that gas on mainlinetransmission lines and, if required, whether we did so and areentitled to deduct a proportionate share of transportation costsin calculating royalty payments.

"We anticipate litigating the second reserved claim in 2013. Webelieve our royalty calculations have been properly determined inaccordance with the appropriate contractual arrangements andColorado law. At this time, the plaintiffs have not provided us asufficient framework to calculate an estimated range of exposurerelated to their claims."

WPX ENERGY: Still Defending Potential Class Suits in New Mexico---------------------------------------------------------------WPX Energy, Inc., expects to litigate this year the secondreserved claim stemming from a class action lawsuit originallyfiled in 2006, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In October 2011, a potential class of royaltyinterest owners in New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaintagainst us in the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaintalleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including dripcondensate, fraud and misstatement of the value of gas andaffiliated sales, breach of duty to market hydrocarbons, violationof the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, bad faithbreach of contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek monetarydamages and a declaratory judgment enjoining activities relatingto production, payments and future reporting. This matter has beenremoved to the United States District Court for New Mexico. InAugust 2012, a second potential class action was filed against usin the United States District Court for the District of New Mexicoby mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado. Plaintiffsclaim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith andfair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both in Coloradoand New Mexico, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas ProceedsPayment Act and seek declaratory judgment, accounting andinjunction. At this time, we believe that our royalty calculationshave been properly determined in accordance with the appropriatecontractual arrangements and applicable laws. We do not havesufficient information to calculate an estimated range of exposurerelated to these claims."

* Canadian Class Action Lawyer Hides Money in Offshore Tax Havens-----------------------------------------------------------------Agence France-Presse reports that Canada's top class-action lawyerand husband of a senator, as well as 450 other Canadians, wereexposed in an unprecedented document leak on April 4 for hidingmoney in offshore tax havens.

Tony Merchant, dubbed by local media Canada's class-action kingbecause of the large settlements he has won for his clients, hidat least C$1.7 million in a Cook Islands trust set up in 1998.The trust then used a brokerage in Bermuda called Ones OverseasManagement to buy mutual funds, the Canadian BroadcastingCorporation reported.

Mr. Merchant's wife, Senator Pana Merchant, as well as their threesons are named in the documents as fund beneficiaries.

The Canadian public broadcaster joined an investigation intooffshore accounts carried out by 37 media organizations around theworld in conjunction with the Washington-based InternationalConsortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). They obtaineddocuments revealing 30 years of closely guarded investmentinformation of more than 100,000 people around the world,including data entries, emails and more.

Offshore investments are not illicit as long as they are not usedto evade taxes or launder money. The CBC, however, said thatMerchant aimed to keep his money transfers strictly secret as herepeatedly battled the Canadian tax agency.

"Keep correspondence to a minimum," read a note on Mr. Merchant'sCook Islands account, warning only to communicate with him byairmail. "Do not fax to client. He will have a stroke."

At one point Mr. Merchant also refused to be identified byofficials in Luxembourg, allowing them to temporarily freeze oneof his mutual funds rather than be exposed. The revelations comeonly weeks after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty vowed to crack downon tax cheats and to close tax loopholes "with strange names like'Synthetic Dispositions' and 'Character Conversion Transactions,'"in order to help balance his budget. The Canadian tax agency alsooffered a bounty for information on tax evading, which Flahertysaid cost government coffers billions of dollars.

* Class Actions Over Medical Collections to Hit Industry--------------------------------------------------------Randall J. Groendyk -- rjgroendyk@varnumlaw.com -- at Varnum LLPreports that several recent class action lawsuits filed againstsome of West Michigan's largest medical providers, collectionagencies, and law firms may have a dramatic impact on thecollection of unpaid medical bills and the collection industry.

The facts in the cases are similar: a medical patient incursseveral medical bills, such as a hospital bill, doctors' bills,etc. The bills are submitted to insurance, which pays most butnot all of the bills. The unpaid balances of the bills arerelatively small. The medical providers are not paid by thepatient, and the accounts are turned over to a collection agency.The collection agency is not successful in collecting the bills,and a law firm files a lawsuit to collect the bills.

Typically, the smaller bills are assigned to the creditor with thelargest unpaid bill, usually the hospital, and suit is filed onlyin the name of the hospital. Information about the smalleraccounts is included in the collection lawsuit, but the onlycreditor filing the lawsuit is the hospital.

The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuits that have been filedclaim that this method of filing collection lawsuits for unpaidmedical bills violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act andsimilar Michigan laws. The FDCPA is a federal law designed toprotect consumers from abusive debt collectors and unfaircollection practices.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuits claim that the FDCPA isviolated because the assignments from the smaller creditors to thehospital are not real or are done only for the purpose of allowingthe collection agency to file one collection lawsuit against thepatient, rather than filing a separate lawsuit for each of themedical providers. The plaintiffs claim that this practice ismisleading, deceptive, and unfair.

The lawsuits also claim that the collection agencies committed theunauthorized practice of law, by doing things that only lawyersshould do, such as deciding how the collection lawsuit is handledand telling the attorney and medical providers what to do.

The lawsuits are class action lawsuits, and the plaintiffs haveasked the courts to bring into the cases all other persons whowere sued in collection cases with similar account assignments.The plaintiffs are asking for treble damages and attorney fees.

The cases are relatively new so the courts have not decidedwhether the plaintiffs' claims have validity. However, regardlessof how the cases are decided or whether or not they are settled,it is likely that the filing of these class action lawsuits willhave a significant impact on the collection industry, includingattorneys, collection agencies, and large medical providers suchas hospitals which use collection agencies. Since damages inclass action FDCPA cases are potentially very large, medicalproviders, collection agencies, and attorneys are likely to changehow they file suits to collect medical bills, rather than beforced to defend similar class action lawsuits in the future.

* Kate Gosselin to Join Class Action Against Online Bullies-----------------------------------------------------------Kelly Cozzone, writing for Examiner.com, reports that a class-action lawsuit against people who have bullied and threatened KateGosselin online is getting another member. On April 3, KateGosselin tweeted her support for the lawsuit. She is reportedlyjoining the class-action lawsuit.

A source close to the situation reveals that, "She [Kate] is 100percent in. She will be a plaintiff." Her support comes on theheels of an anti-bullying group releases the names of some of herworst attackers.

James McGibney, of BullyVille released the names of many ofMs. Gosselin's bullies and announced the lawsuit claiming thatMs. Gosselin was subjected to "death threats, pedophilia claims,theft and documented stalking."

Hours after Mr. McGibney released the real identities of heronline haters, Kate tweeted, "FYI: I am in favor of any legalactions to stop all forms of bullying-including death threats andstalking-and if it requires a court room setting involving a classaction law suit, I support it. As always, I will do whatever ittakes to keep my family safe."

Mr. McGibney claims that the reason he released the realidentities of Kate Gosselin's Twitter haters was because theycrossed the line. By releasing the names, Mr. McGibney causedTwitter to blow up with more accusations and brutal attacksagainst not only himself but Ms. Gosselin as well.

It wasn't just the attacks on Kate Gosselin that upset him saysMr. McGibney. It was that the attacks were being directed againstanyone who said something nice about Ms. Gosselin.

McGibney announced his lawsuit with the twitter message: "Afterseeing death threats, pedophilia claims, theft and documentedstalking against @Kateplusmy8 & fans, we've decided to file aclass action lawsuit against the main offenders. The evidence isoverwhelming and the victims deserve justice."

* Louisiana Bill to Curb Class Certification Abuse at Lower Court-----------------------------------------------------------------Kyle Barnett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports a recentproposal introduced in the state House would require higherstandards for certifying class action lawsuits.

HB472, authored by first term Representative Jay Morris(R-Monroe), would put a higher burden of proof on those who bringclass action lawsuits in lower courts.

Mr. Morris said class actions are costly to defend and he believesjudges sometimes do not require enough information before allowingthem to proceed. The bill proposes that all members of the largesuits have the same claim without question from the court.

"In my view it really shouldn't be needed, but sometimes you haveto write laws in a little more mandatory fashion. It closes a fewloopholes, but I'm not looking to eliminate class actions," hesaid. "This bill simply tightens up the requirements for classcertification and it makes it more clear."

Mr. Morris said he has found that sometimes plaintiff's attorneysare wrongly lumping together dissimilar cases into one classaction.

"In my opinion, it is really unfair to the defendant because onceyou get the class certified they are looking at turning what mightbe a $1,000 claim into a $1 million claim or a $100,000 claim intoa $5 million claim," he said. "I think that you just need to befair to defendants and make sure that you just don't cherry pick agood claim and try to extrapolate that claim across a big classwhen those facts may not apply to everyone."

Mr. Morris said he has seen numerous cases be certified by a courtonly to later be decertified and dismissed.

"In Louisiana at times, depending on what jurisdiction you are in,there is not a lot of scrutiny applied to the requirements ofclass action certification," he said. "A lot of cases end upgetting decertified after the defendant has spent, depending onthe situation, $100,000 to $5 million in defense costs before thecase was ultimately decertified."

The ultimate goal of HB472, according to Mr. Morris, is to keepclass action lawsuits that should have never been certified in thefirst place out of the court system.

"At the end of the day either the defendants get pressured tosettle or they fight it for years on end and it is ultimately soconvoluted that it can get decertified and all that money is justdown the drain and the plaintiffs and the defendants don't comeout with anything," he said.

The bill has been assigned to the Committee on Civil Law andProcedure who will have the first look at the legislation uponcommencement of the legislative session on April 8.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.